If the Iraqis deserve freedom, then why not the Palestinians?

Great Debates
61

…By Arab countries, many of which are ruled by western-allied monarchs and despots, that are more concerned for their own asses than the plight of the Palestinians. Egypt and Syria were the only countries that seemed likely to be able to help the Palestinians and after the Sinai and Golan Heights were taken suddenly they were a littler more concerned with their own interests. Arab unity in the fight against Israel shattered quickly, as defeat after massive defeat was dealt to them by a motivated and US armed Israel.

At Camp David 2, two things were never offered by the Israelis. Jerusalem and the right of return for all people originating from that region. Barak knew full well the “reasonable solution” he was placing on the table would be a deal breaker for Arafat. The right of return is a no-brainer to me, Israel has had a law of return granting citizenship to any Jewish person in the world that chooses to move there for decades. Without question the people that were expelled from that land should be permitted to return. Jerusalem, however, neither side will budge on, and some people have said, quite smartly I think, that it should be internationalized and run by a board of trustees from the three faiths laying claim to it. Like a multicultural Vatican City.

Getting back on track, the end result of CD2 was that Israel and its supporters got to say, we gave them 90% of what they were asking for and they still wouldn’t take the deal; a statement made conveniently devoid of context. Also, Arafat is a militarist and a terrorist, he has no place at any negotiating table imo. He is not the face I’d like to see leading the Palestinians. Personally, I think Edward Said would make a fine choice.

I agree with that statement. Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israel as a whole not just the occupied territories. Although I’d be more inclined to define it not as a weapon of choice, but rather as a weapon of last resort by a people with few physical resources, and no tradition of conscientious objection.

I also agree, however, that piece of land, unlike most of the arbitrarily drawn borders in the Middle East, has had some identity for most of history. Phoenicia, Canaan, Judea, Palestine, Israel, its all the same place. The point is, in the modern world there were several million people going back several generations living on that land, some with deeds to their homes, that were kicked out because the Brits and the UN decided the Jews deserved a homeland after the atrocity of WWII, not to mention they had been emigrating there and buying up land since before the turn of the century anyway. It’s a colony of foreign Jews living on land they took literally at gunpoint, and still hold onto at gunpoint to this day. Some of my family lives in Israel and they are quite content with that reality. I’m not, the Palestinian’s aren’t, and most of the world isn’t. It just so happens the richest, most powerful and influential nation in the world is okay with it and at the end of the day that’s the only vote that counts. I guess someone forgot to inform the terrorists of how the world works.

No doubt Israel will continue to exist, but not in it’s current form. Even Shrub realizes and has vocalized that the Palestinians need a state… no one’s clear on just how to go about it.

Cracking down on terrorism is as fruitless as cracking down on drug addicts has been, and many times more counterproductive. Some drives can’t be countered with force. In Vietnam for example, we killed millions upon millions of Vietnamese communists and they never backed down. Besides these people are already living in shit, in poverty and perpetual war, they have little to live for already except to throw themselves into our lap clutching homemade bombs. To lash out at their oppressor. What is one more war, one more tank, one more bulldozer going to do but give them less to live for, and more motivation to try and take us with them as they get flushed down the shitter?

To defeat terrorism you have to remove the conditions that fostered it in the first place. Which I think is debate for another thread.

62

Scratch that, should say several hundred thousand. Their decedents now number in the millions though.

63

Cain,

Surely you realize that the “Right of Return” is a “deal breaker” for Israel? It would assure the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. A compensation fund was part of the package. And please remeber that just as many Jews were displaced from Arab lands as Arab from the new Israel. Shouldn’t they be compensated for their confiscated properties?

Arab Jeruselam was to be given over and control of the Temple Mount area.

Arafat didn’t belong at the table? Now you sound like Sharon! Sure he’s a militant and a terrorist. But he was the only representative the Palestinians had and was recognized by the international community. If he decided that counter-proposals were too much for him then he spoke for his people.

Out of context? Google up some interviews with Malley. (We’ll leave Ross out of this) He’ll put it into context in a POV very sympathetic to Arafat in that he shares the blame all around … Barak made tactical blunders by going after Syria first and by trying to position for the best possible deal … Clinton screwed up some too … but Arafat walked from what was clearly more than could ever have been previously hoped for and more than will ever be offered again … without even making a counter offer.

You want to claim that the Arab families have a legit claim because they were there before the Israelis were there but then invalidate the historical claims which Jews never abandoned? Give it up. They both have claims. Most Israelis now accept that a two state solution will be the only solution and some may even dream of the federated entity that I fantasize of.

Hmmm… You say “Palestinian terrorism is a response to Israel as a whole not just the occupied territories” and that “to defeat terrorism you have to remove the conditions that fostered it in the first place.” so therefore the only way to defeat terrorism is to eliminate Israel.

But “no doubt Israel will continue to exist”?

I think that the problems are self-evident.

Sorry. You can control terrorism, if not defeat it. There is an infrastructure that supports it within the PA. IF Arafat or Abbas wanted to reduce terrorism they could. It would be costly for them no doubt, but it is doable. And again, even a good faith effort would force even Sharon’s hand, and reduce the root causes some. But some root cause would always remain because Israel will remain.

64

Arafat doesn’t want peace. He has billions of dollars of aid money in his bank accounts. He is an evil man. True peace will only be brought about with his demise. The Palestenians are taught to hate from birth. They simply fail to recognize who the actual people are who bring about their poverty. I can’t blame them. When a person is brainwashed from birth, true reason is hard to attain.

65

Are you really unfamiliar with the arguments on the other side of this dead horse?

66

You are one callous jackass.

67

Well if the Israelis truly believe in freedom, democracy, and equality that’s a risk they are going to have to take. Frankly, I don’t think it would be the end of the world to give the people they displaced a political say. Johannesburg didn’t crumble after the political monopoly held by its colonial powers was dissolved.

That was informally mentioned by Barak but never officially offered as part of the deal. Officially the Palestinians were offered sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem and a limited civilian administration in East Jerusalem. The city itself was still an Israeli entity. Both sides wanted majority control; hence it’s my feeling that internationalization is the only solution.

There are other better candidates for his job imo. Like I said, I think Edward Said is the prefect person to speak on the Palestinian’s behalf. He’s a scholar, not a man with blood on his hands.

I agree, I think all sides played a part in the failure. My personal take is that the Israeli’s conceded less than they need to. Drastic, state-altering changes are required. The status quo or anything derivative of it will not suffice. Here is an article that sums up my stance pretty well.

The Israeli’s have a claim that dates back to times that when God spoke to people we didn’t lock them up for hearing him. The Palestinians were there in the last century. I personally don’t think the statute of limitations on land claims should extend to the biblical era. Should we all be allowed to go back to wherever the hell we were first? Should the Indians get America back, should the South Americans go back to Spain and Portugal? It’s a modern era and the Palestinians have a modern claim.

No not eliminate it, drastic reform is how I would phrase it. That state should continue to exist, just not it’s present form. I wish I knew exactly what the makeup of a shared Palestinian/ Israeli nation should be, but I don’t. I all I really know is what we have now is not working.

You can control terrorism? If so why haven’t the Israelis been able to? Why is terrorism now as motivated and popular as any time in history even after two successful wars against it? The orphaned sons and daughters of terrorist will spring up to strike us again and again. Conflict is not the solution. The solution is diplomacy, compromise, redress of grievances, nation building, ending support or deposition of oppressive monarchs and dictators, liberalized economies, populist (even if that means Islamic) democratic leaders, and removal of the other conditions that are a fertile ground for terrorism.

68

Moderator’s Note: And you have broken the rules of the Great Debates forum, which don’t allow for direct personal insults like that. Don’t do that again.

69

I’m sorry ME, I lost my temper and I apologize to Creative_Munster

70

The biggest stumbling block to a negotiated peace seems to me to be the West Bank Settlements. Can a pro-Israel poster explain to me the reason Israel insists on keeping and expanding them? The most benign explanation I can think of is that they want something significant to “give up” during negotations. Clearly, a 2 state solution is the only realistic answer. And clearly the Palestinian state will contain all or most of the West Bank. Why would Israelis want to plunk their citizens down in what will eventually be “Palestine”? The CD2 compromise that offered the West Bank had the ludicrous layout of dozens (if not hundreds) of Israelli islands dotted around the West Bank.

I’d like to see the US pressure Israel to start dismantling these settlements as a step toward a negotiated peace arangement. The Israelis can set up conditions for independence. I totally agree with that. But they have to set up the West Bank as a significant part of the future Palestinian State.

71

It’s cool. I didn’t mean to come across as callous. I find their mindset sad actually.

72

I heard an Israeli official (the bald guy who sounds like an American) give this explanation: Israel does not consider the land being settled as Palestinian land; it is ‘disputed territory’. Israel has had a long standing policy, starting with Munich, of not negotiating with terrorists. Arafat has been considered a terrorist since Munich. Therefore they will not consider any issues raised by Palestinian officials, including settlements and land division, until Arafat is gone or attacks against civilians stop.

73

Zwaldd: Yeah, I should’ve mentioned that I’ve heard that explanation from the yound Israel diplomat that Fox always has on their new analysis shows as a guest (can’t remember his name or his official position). The Israelis were willing to negotiate w/ Arafat in the past (ie, CD2). To me that sounds like “we need them as bargaining tools”. I was hoping for something I hadn’t heard before, but maybe that is the best I’m going to get.

74

DSaid, this is really no answer to my question. You speculate on what Israels domestic politics would look like given that Israel already has lost US military aid. But you do not show why any Isaeli government would let it come to that.

75

To clear up my initial OP…I’m not advocating that the US end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through military means. As one poster has pointed out, Israel has been doing this for years and has not suceeded in eradicating the threat of terrorism. I’ve been reading about the Middle East roadmap and I would like to know if there is any plausible argument that Bush can give if he begins to backpeddle on his promises that he would implement an evenhanded peace plan and the creation of a Palestinian state.

DSeid:

I apologize if my OP gave you the impression that I was not advocating liberation for the Saudis. In fact, I’m all for the liberation for any Arab peoples who feel that they are opressed. Im bringing up the Palestinians because of current debates concerning the Middle East road map and because the Palestinians have been vocal about their right to self-determination. I agree with your comments about Bush’s real intentions in going to war with Iraq. But whether Bush meant it or not, this war has mostly become one of liberation as per its name “Operation: Iraqi Freedom”. After the fall of Bagdad, both Bush and Blair made speeches to the Iraqi people assuring them that their freedom was at hand. Last Friday, Bush made a speech at a military hospital stating that the American troops should know that their sacrifice ensures the freedom of future generations of Iraqis. In my opinion, cynicism and hypocriscy about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t a luxury we nor our troops can afford right now. Part of their job is to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world. I am sure some of those hearts and minds are asking, “If the Iraqis deserve freedom, then why not the Palestianians?”

76

This war and the new Palestinian leader presented an opportunity to move the Israeli position, apparently.

Funny how things work sometimes.

77

Well, I was predicting that Israel would be a lot more tractable once their security threats were more in control.

And whaddya know…

Sharon Hints That Settlements May Have To Go

Score another one for the administration, which is leaning on Sharon for this. In fact, I’m willing to bet this was part of a quid-pro-quo for other security guarantees. Watch Lebanon closely.

78

“Watch Lebanon closely”

Care to elaborate? Are you implying that the US might perform some strikes against Lebanon? Not sure what you meant, Sam.

79

I haven’t really studied the thing, but it does seem that a first step is key on the part of the Palestinians: taking the process out of PLO hands. This is still playing itself out with Arafat to retain control over security issues and negotiations, limiting the PM to interior matters…

So the new PM operates under Arafat’s control. But Abbas has been involved himself with the PLO for years, and he’s also been involved with the Oslo accords and past peace talks…he’s not exactly Arafat’s yes-man, but he’s not going to distance himself too much either. He hasn’t said much. When he does start talking, I think we’ll here more from Bush and know more about the future of the road map.

80

That’s exactly what I’m implying. Either direct military strikes, or leaning on Syria to do something about Lebanon. Hezbollah is a big threat to Israel, and Lebanon is Hezbollah’s playground.

Also, if you look at a map of Israel, the biggest problem with a Palestinian state is that it takes a big chunk of Israel surrounded by Lebanon and Syria and cuts it off from the rest of the country other than through a small corridor. That’s indefensible, and I believe it’s been one of the main reasons Israel is scared of a Palestinian state.

But solve the Lebanon problem, and lean on Syria to shape up, and Israel can give Lebanon their state.

But maybe Israel is willing to take the chance now, with Iraq out of the picture. Iraq was a serious threat, both directly and in terms of the support it gave terrorists.