Grey
On a closing note, while I appreciate actual attempts at edification your snide and arrogant tone seems to belie you good intentions.
?
And about those “local Arabs” and your mentioning of Jewish immigrants buying land, we could go on for a while since history is never as simple as it seems.
By that way: what is your intention with that last remark?
Salaam. A
Oh forgot:
Of course I’m arrogant.
I saw the light of life in a madhouse.
Salaam. A
Israel insisting on 100% guarantee of security from a Palestinian state is unrealistic, and (IMO) designed to prevent a settlement. What could possibly constitute such a guarantee?
The Palestinian position that Israel, in effect, ignore the Arab world’s attempts to destroy it, withdraw behind the pre-1967 borders, and compensate all displaced Arabs is equally unrealistic, and (IMO) designed to prevent a settlement.
IOW it’s like the Northern Ireland situation was up until recently, in that the hard men on both sides have no interest in the situation being resolved, as they would lose their positions of power and exciting life of war and killing.
I don’t know how we get there, but IMO the solution is for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, and Palestine to be established as a viable state. The compromises to be traded are that Palestine give up all claim to East Jerusalem (except for guaranteed visiting rights) and Israel withdraw all their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip (except access to those who insist on remaining under Palestinian rule). All other claims and counter-claims to be foregone.
My position on Israel’s security is this: they are under less threat from a Palestinian state than from Jordan and Egypt when they held the same areas that would comprise Palestine. They managed to win 4 wars in a row in 25 years against established Arab states. Established states are less of a security threat than disenfranchised, stateless, desperate peoples. A properly constituted nation of Palestine would have to provide its people with basic facilities, and would be so militarily weak as to be no actual threat to Israel’s existence.
Because you’re scared if you give it back, he’ll pop you in the face with it? 
Aldebaran,
I don’t often give people advice because its generally a useless activity but I’ll break my own rule and offer you some, and please note that it is friendly advice as I’m not against you.
Your opinions on the USA, Arabs and Israel, challenge many preconceived notions and are going to be unpopular with many people. That’s not a bad thing in itself but it does mean getting across your point of view will be harder for you then most. Maybe you feel everyone here is ignorant and against you, and sometimes you will be right. But the harder it is to sell a product the better a salesman you need to be. You might be surprised at how reasonable many people, even Americans, can be when they aren’t feeling insulted. You need to be more diplomatic and less dogmatic.
Otherwise one day I’m going to log on here and see under your name the word BANNED. And that will be a shame because there are people here like me that appreciate an Arab point of view as a balance to the prevailing orthodoxy. That makes you an important poster here even if that’s rarely acknowledged. I’m glad you post here to challenge people’s views and tell them how things look from the other side and I hope you will long do so. But you wont if you are gone.
This is completely disingenuous, the meaning of UN 242 is very clear. To quote the full sentence, including the bit you didn’t quote, it reads (bolding mine):
UN 242 was adopted on Nov 22, 1967, so it is quite clear what territories it was referring to: those occupied by Israel in the 1967 War. As I have stated, Israel neighbors didn’t make any effort to follow 242 themselves, so I wouldn’t hold it to Israel to have done so unilaterally; it would be absurd to expect that of a nation involved in what has been described as The War of Attrition from 1967-70. Frankly 242 was just the usual UN Resolution calling on a settlement to a situation with no teeth behind it and based on a fairly idealized look at reality. It was, however, a UNSC Resolution that Israel failed to follow.
sigh.
You will insist on continuing this little tete a tete of a train wreck wont you?
From the top. I was pointing out a potential aspect of the conflict that could hinder Israeli acceptance of a functional Palestinian state. Anyone who isn’t ware of the complex nesting of grievances, claims and betrayal that makes up the Middle East is one lucky bastard. It’s sad a hell.
You however, mischaracterized my post, followed up with a snide dig ay my education in these matters, continued on by calling me arrogant ( I might give you dismissive) and that I was seeking to educate you. You still have yet to show me where; seeing how I’ve only about 5 posts here it should be easy. Now you’ve gone and played the martyr with your madhouse ( ) comment.
As to the final comment, it does seem to read fairly clearly.
Actually, UN 242 was intentionally made vague. The original draft wording was
. As you can imagine, both the Israelis and the Americans had a problem with that, and the American ambassador to the UN, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, managed to get the resolution changed to what it became. So, the resolution, as it stood, said that Israel had to withdraw from territory, but didn’t specify how much territory they had to withdraw from to be in compliance (And, in fact, they did withdraw from the Sinai after the agreement with Egypt).
KidCharlemagne I hope you don’t think I was attacking your points, because the first line in my post was meant more as an introduction than a critique. Your questions from your initial post are very valid, and are the right ones, and in fact are at the root of the problem.
The biggest problem is, from what I can see, both sides are too rigid, and have too much animosity for each other, that answering your questions is impossible for them. Arabs will remember history with bitterness for having a Jewish state thrown down in their midst. Jews will feel finally (finally) vindicated for centuries of shameful anti-semitism, by having their own state. So how do you compromise?
I think the answers are simple, but they require both sides to swallow their pride somewhat. Israel pulls out of the WB and GS, builds a big wall between themselves and the new Palestinian state. The World Bank propts up Palestine for the first few years, in order to get some infrastructure going and begin some investment and industry. Both sides have nothing to do with each other for a long while, then maybe after 40 years or so, much like the Berlin Wall (a specious comparison, I know, but bear with me here), maybe, just maybe, the wall can come down and they can get along. In the mean time, Israel apologizes for the occupation and aggression it undertook, and Palestine apologizes for the terrorism and murdering of civilians.
That way, both sides have to swallow their pride, accept some that responsibility is a two-way street, and move on. All other concerns, whatever they are, can be dealt with in this scenario, because each side will then be separated and deal with its own problems without worrying about the other side. And the Arab world just has to accept that regardless of any historical beef they may have with Jews or the West, Israel is not going away, will never go away, and will be supported. Those who keep bringing up Zionism are preventing themselves from growing. It may have been a sad thing for them, but it’s not going to change, ever.
I just don’t see this happening any time soon, because neither side will bend enough. And as for Israel expecting to have terrorist networks dismantled before they concede territory, I just don’t see how anyone could ever do this, while a Palestinian state would be forced to work in that direction. I sympathize, but I can’t imagine how the status quo could be at all any better than a state that must police (unddcer intense international pressure) its own people and pledge to end terror.
I didn’t think you were attacking me or my points. I just wanted to make it clear that the “but it’s soooo easy” tone of my OP was intended to elicit a “help me understand” response from others rather than a great debate. Part of what I was asking about/getting at through my original questions, and has been born out by the responses, is that these two peoples are just no longer capable of rational negotiations with each other and that a third party needs to mandate not mediate. I want my country to get off it’s damn ass and tell Israel to get out of GS/WB now and maybe spend some of the money used to fight terrorism to help the Israelis relocate. IMO, this aspect really isn’t that complex. Other aspects of the conflict are complex but the Israeli occupation doesn’t seem to be.
I didn’t think you were attacking me or my points. I just wanted to make it clear that the “but it’s soooo easy” tone of my OP was intended to elicit a “help me understand” response from others rather than a great debate. Part of what I was asking about/getting at through my original questions, and has been born out by the responses, is that these two peoples are just no longer capable of rational negotiations with each other and that a third party needs to mandate not mediate. I want my country to get off it’s damn ass and tell Israel to get out of GS/WB now and maybe spend some of the money used to fight terrorism to help the Israelis relocate. IMO, this aspect really isn’t that complex. Other aspects of the conflict are complex but the Israeli occupation doesn’t seem to be. All I ever hear about is what the Palestinians need to do, not what the Israelis need to do.
KidCharlemagne, you are completely right. I would love to see my own damn country do the same thing, but I live in Canada and no one really listens to us anyway. Nonetheless, I think the EU and the US, working with the UN, may need to go beyond mediation and get into enforcement. This will be a very tricky area, since any attempts to impose a settlement will be met with resistance from both sides, but it would be nice if something got done. Don’t hold your breath, though. Try reading the book I mentioned, if you are really interested in getting to the roots of the conflict (it’s a bit heavy, though, be prepared to take a while to get through it).
A valid point. However, even with the dropping of “all” and “to the July 5, 1967 lines” from the draft resolution, the sentence
isn’t terribly vague on its face. When combined with the second introductory sentence from the final draft of 242
it is clear that none of the territory occupied by Israel in 1967 was to become a permanent part of Israel with the UN’s blessing. The ultimate goal of 242 and the UN plan for peace was the return of the land taken by Israel in 1967 in exchange for Israel’s neighbors accepting Israel’s right to exist, an end to their claims of belligerency when it suited them and non-belligerency when that was a more favorable view, and an end to their support of terrorist activities directed at Israel. The return of one nation’s occupied territory at a time in what was essentially a separate pace with Egypt under Sadat is one thing, but the permanent acquisition of territory was quite another and wasn’t envisioned under 242. When adopted in 1967, UN 242 wasn’t very realistic, though. Israel wasn’t going to give up what was buffer land against its neighbors, and its neighbors weren’t going to end their hostilities when they felt they could wear Israel down by means of attrition and sustained low scale military action which they felt fed into their advantage of superior numbers. Egypt went to great lengths to be able to continue shelling Israeli positions until the creation of the Bar Lev line of fortifications in the Sinai, going as far as not attempting to repair refineries damaged by Israel in retaliatory bombardment and evacuating civilians from the Canal Zone.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by this, but it sounds appallingly arrogant.
Just because Palestine and its people don’t meet some arbitrary western standards of perfection doesn’t mean they have any less right to exist. Palestine exists. Palestinians exist.
For a brief history I would second the recommendation to mideastweb.org. It is about as balanced as one can possibly be, given the circumstances.
As you can see, things quickly get bogged down in details. I will attempt to present a very brief synopsis, from a moderately pro-Israeli point of view. Just for completeness.
Zionism started in the 1880s as a reaction to a wave of European anti-Semitism. The Jews played their cards exactly right with the British, and using the trump card of the Holocaust, managed to get a state in Palestine, even though they never formed the majority. Part of this lies in the fact that Zionism as a nationalist movement was well organized and well politically represented twenty years before the Arabs even began to think about nationalism. Part of it was a bizarre confluence of factors on which the British and Jews had no influence – Stalin and Truman happened to be exceptionally pro-Israeli from 1947 to 1948.
Israel was formed in 1948. She won major wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 that were not of her instigation. In 1967, this brought a lot of territory into Israeli hands that was predominantly Arab Palestinian. They had a rapidly strengthening nationalism movement. A notable change happened in 1978, when Egypt was the first MENA country to enter a peace treaty with Israel, in exchange for the Sinai. This treaty has held.
I’m leaving out a ton on purpose here. Refugees, holy sites, terrorism, intifada, Camp David II and Oslo. They are all details which I think obscures the major point:
The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is in effect the same war that has been played out time immemorial. A powerful nation either occupies and comes into possession of a piece of land with nonlocals living on it. The locals start to rebel. Jews have always been the underdog until now, and in some ways it is a taste of their own medicine. What always happens is that the occupying power imagines itself more enlightened and acts on their current social mores. This leads to anything from bloody suppression (Romans and the Jewish Revolt) to limited self government (Babylonians) to complete withdrawal (British).
As much as I am pro-Israeli, I have come to believe that just as in the case of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and British before them, the impetus lies squarely with the occupying power. As much as the locals (in this case the Palestinians) bloody Israeli noses in the occupied territories, Israelis cannot expect Palestinians to suddenly spontaneously develop a peace-loving Western style liberal democracy. The impetus lies with the Israelis to get out of Palestine (the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza) and either leave them to their own devices or actively help them to rebuild and form a state (like Cyrus did with the Jews).
Since the second intifada began, I have stood by my Ed peace plan. Build a big honking wall. There is a big honking wall around Gaza, and thus very few suicide bombers come from there. There is a big honking wall between Lebanon, and few people sneak over the border. As long the West Bank border is porous as knit yarmulke types commute between their Herziliya offices and their homes in the West Bank, there will be suicide bombers. Qalqiliya people will blow up people in Kfar Saba, Jenin ones to Netanya, Bethlehem ones to Jerusalem. Build a big honking wall and unilaterally withdraw. Get the UN to start an international fund. Resettle a token amount of Palestinian refugees in Israel, financially compensate the rest. Financially compensate settlers wishing to move back to Israel. I’d give them some of the rights of Aliya in order to help with housing costs. The rest of the settlers and hilltop youth can become citizens in the new state of Palestine. Water, electricity, jobs, economic assistance, and further infrastructure will be determined based on Palestinian national behavior.
Let me just add that it is my sincere belief that Jews have learned one thing in 2000 years of oppression: the art of negotiation. Jews have a long history of making any deal as long as it guarantees some kind of short term safety. If left unmolested, the Jewish way of life always seemed to improve even under harsh conditions. The Jewish problem is that their host governments have never played by the rules.
They destroyed the Temple twice. The first time it led to the writing of the Talmud and a great expansion of Jewish philosophy, history, and learning in the Babylonian Diaspora. The second time it led to the formation of the Yavneh school and the modern rabbinical tradition. Christians forbid usury, so the Jews constructed the financial backbone of Europe that led the world out of the Dark Ages. The Venetians created the ghetto, and the Jews made it a center of art, science, and learning. They were booted out of Europe and created thriving communities throughout the New World. In every situation (except Hitler, with whom no deal could be made), Jews have made whatever deal better for themselves.
Here we have another chance. Israelis (and Jews in general) would have to sacrifice a lot: Hebron and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the Jericho shul, internationalization of Jerusalem (probably). They would not get certain peace or security. What they would get is a tenable situation which can only be made better. What they would get is support of much of the world community. And this time, there are no Tsars or Grand Inquisitors to take it away. They still have to play by the rules. But this time, they get to write the rules.
Well, I never did get on-line yesterday. Sorry about that. Red Rage. Primal fury. NOT in a mood to be polite, reasoned and even partially objective. So I thought it was better not even to try going on-line under those conditions.
I see, furthermore, that most of the unanswered questions I left have been answered by others, pretty much in terms I can endorse.
One point left I want to tackle:
But, but… that’s EXACTLY what the “road map”, which the Israeli govt. has officially endorsed, says! So your question has already been answered in the positive by the Israeli govt. It was a momentuous decision, BTW, precisely because of the fact that it essentially means that we HAVE agreed to a future Palestinian state.
It’s the “we cannot leave before you have laid down your weapons…” part - also included in the road map and accepted by the Palestinians as well - that has not even been attempted by them, in any shape or form.
As to continued activity on west back settlements - the ongoing activity is the action of a vocal minority among Israelis who, indeed, see the land as more important than a chance for peace. They just put a caravan atop a hill, and call it a “new settlement”. Sometimes they don’t even bother putting people in said caravan. For each Caravan the army dismounts, two more pop up (and the army DOES dismount them).
You think maybe if the carnage stopped then perhaps Israeli public opinion would turn away from the settleres and their stunts (which are essentially PR, not actual settlement), making our side of the deal easier to implement as well?
Just a point to ponder.
I appologize in advance if I sound snarky this morning. It’s because I still am - though at none of you people. Bear with me.
Dan Abarbanel
The proposition “We are prepared to leave but we wont until we have security” gets things ass backwards. You are never going to have peace in the occupied territories while they are occupied. Your occupation creates terrorism and always will. Palestinians are going to resist as long as you are there. Invasions provoke resistance, and you or I not liking the manner of the resistance is beside the point. Whether your enemy restricts himself to military targets or whether he bombs kindergartens will be decided by him, you get no say in it. The Spanish resisted the French, the French resisted the Germans, the Palestinians resist the Israelis. That how it goes when you have chosen the path of conquerer which you have done. You cant occupy and oppress them forever but they will resist you forever.
Its a pipedream to think that the PA is ever going to stop the problem of terrorism for you. Sure, they will mouth a few platitudes about cracking down on militants because their arm is twisted but they wont ever be vigourous in enforcing it. And why should they? Why on Earth should they fight a civil war for your sake? They’re not your friends and they gain nothing by seriously waging your war for you, one that you yourselves cannot win.
Its not up to the Palestinians, its up to you. You are the ones with the power in this situation. Pull out, wall up and know that there are no guarantees of security in this world for you or anyone else. But you can guarantee conflict for yourself and thats what your current occupation does. Your future security wont come from the Palestinians, it comes from the IDF, the best led, trained. experienced and equipped force in the region. Israel will survive.
Eolbo, I notice that you did not mention the Northern Ireland situation. Because I feel that there lies proof that it is possible to stop violence first and talk second. Of course it takes a lot of guts on the terrorists’ part (and the IRA political leadership has taken, and takes, tons of flak for having laid down their arms) - but it is possible.
The NI/UK model is what I would like to follow. Oh, I haven’t seen UK withdraw completely from NI yet, nor remove the English-ethnic population they put there… yet progress is being made, without resort to violence - especially against civilians. Last point - no more IRA terrorism lead almost immediately to no more British actions hunting them down, that could inadvertantly hurt NI civilian population. On the whole, quite a parallel situation actually.
YMMV
Dan Abarbanel
It didn’t occur to me to mention NI as I don’t really see the situation as comparable other then in a few superficial aspects. NI is legally an integral part of the United Kingdom and its citizens have the associated political rights that entails and the restraint from security forces that will engender. You didn’t see Britain calling in airstrikes in urban areas to kill IRA members as the collateral damage would have killed off Britain’s cause overnight. Democracies just cant do that to their own citizens. Most importantly, most of the population of NI is protestant and content with their role as UK citizens so there is mass support for the ‘occupation’. Its elements of the catholic minority that want to leave the UK. Contrast this with the situation in the territories which were seized by force within living memory and the occupiers unwelcome to most of the population. Perhaps some of the irish dopers can correct me if I’m wrong but I’d be surprised if the protestant majority considered themselves to be under a foreign and hostile military occupation. This community acceptance by most of their political status also means that the occupation could be much less severe that it is in the territories.
Additionally the irish factions share a common language and culture which makes the prospects for co-existence much brighter, and there isn’t these days the hate between the English and the Irish such as there clearly is between Palestinians and Israelis. I note you mentioned removing the english-ethnic population from NI. I assume this was facetious as there isn’t really such a population any more, they have been there so long they are just Irish. All of your settlers in the territories have moved there within my lifetime.
So the way I see it, circumstances worked in favour of a peaceful settlement in Ireland but they work against you.