The imprisonment of Sari Nusseibeh for purportedly spying for Iraq (of all places) when Nusseibeh has been one of the few Palestinians who has had the courage to tell his people that there are things they cannot reasonably expect to demand from Israel.
Israel has never engaged the center. In every single negotiation for over 20 years, any act of violence has been treated by Israel as their cue to simply walk out. Israel chooses to let the militants and extremists hold the entire process hostage to any act of violence, thereby signalling Hamas and others that they will eventually succeed.
It is true that violence escalated when Habarek began talks. It is also true that the Israeli far right used that violence as an excuse to force the talks to end. Had they continued the talks despite the violence, the Palestinian center would have a reason to believe that Israel was bargaining in good faith and they would provide less support for the extremists. By demonstrating that Israel will quit at any action by the extremists (whom the center can support or not support, but whom they cannot stop), the Isrealis have continually signalled to the Palestinians that they only accept the extremists as legitimate. (The extremists are, after all, the only ones who can prompt Israel to do anything.)
december,
Since there are parts of the OP that I don’t understand that have naught to do with what you are positing and are not suitable for this forum, I have asked you this question:
What EXACTLY did you mean december? in another place.
Kindly reply.
Sparc
Tom,
That does not come nearly close to even beginning to support your assertion. You have stated that the reason the PA has corrupt leaders is “since Israel keeps imprisoning the uncorrupted ones”. Which implies that were it not for Israel consistently imprisoning the uncorrupted ones, the PA leadership would be uncorrupt. For this you need to show two things. 1) That Israel has a consistent pattern of imprisoning the uncorrupted ones, as opposed to pointing to one single person. 2) That were it not for all these uncorrupted leaders being imprisoned, they would comprise the primary leadership of the PA (which you seem to acknowledge is not the case when you refer to Nusseibeh as “one of the few Palestinians” etc.)
(As an aside, I’m not sure if relative moderate is the same as uncorrupted - but no difference)
Perhaps the OP ought to have been phrased more broadly. As several posters have pointed out, the question goes beyond posters.
Why do some people who agree with Israel and disagree with their Arab neighbors on a host of vital issues, nevertheless tend to take the side of the Arabs in this dispute?
Poet Robert Frost offered an answer almost 100 years ago. A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.
P.S. the death penalty could be added to the list in the OP. The US is accused of atrocities for having a death penalty. Yet, Israel receives no rhetorical credit for having no death penalty, while many of its Arab neighbor do have one.
However, as the OP pointed out, Arafat and Sharon act totally opposite on a host of important issues, from religious prejudice to women’s liberation to the death penalty. Why do you not ever focus on these differences?
Duck Duck Goose – I certainly did not mean to imply that any posters or any liberals are crytpo-homophobes or secret bigots. I meant to dramatize the puzzling question of why some of them support the anti-Israel position of those who do fit that description. Your reaction may be explained by the old saying, If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
That’s a good effort at an explanation, Apos. However, consider that: [ul][li]Many Pit threads do blast “no-brainer” evils, like this one or this one.[]The UN frequently passes resolutions blasting Israel but giving Arabs a free pass. The UN doesn’t ignore Arab atrocities because they’re “no-brainers” []How often do anti-Israel posters criticize one-sided UN resolutions? The European Union doesn’t seem to consider Arafat’s mis-deeds “no-brainers.” [/ul][/li][quote]
xenophon41
In order to effectively counter corrupt leadership in Palestine “good treatment” needs to be supported by major policy and a wide focus on human rights within all areas controlled by Israel.
[/quote]
Israel does provide a focus on human rights for Arab and Palestinian citizens. It’s difficult for Israel to overcome Arafat’s human rights abuses in the areas controlled by the PA.
We don’t have to wonder. Israel followed this very policy after the Camp David accords. What happened was that Israel’s enemies built up sarge stores of weapons. When they had enough weapons, Arafat delcared an inmtifada. They’ve been murdering Israelis every since.
First of all, there was a lenthy period when Arafat was left alone. He used that period to premote hatred against Israel and to build weapons.
There was that lengthy period when Arafat had pledged to keep the peace. Instead, he allowed terrorist groups to prepare for war, incouding al Aksa – the PA-affiliated terrorist group.
No comment.
This is hyperbole. Not “any act of violence” was a “cue” to walk out. A consistent pattern of violence.
Exactly. So you give up conrol of much territory, offer more. And in return you ask that your citizens not be slaughtered. But that is unreasonable - if you insist too hard then you are not demonstrating good faith. You must accept an unlimited number of killings in order to give the “Palestinian center” reason to believe. This is too much to ask of anyone, and - I believe - more than has ever been asked of anyone.
But beyond this, the alleged “Palestinian center” is by and large fictional. So there is really no one to engage. If the PA could not or would not clamp down on extremists under pressure of negotiations, there is no reason to believe that they would suddenly be motivated to do so after they got the deal done.
You are still on your strawman. I don’t see what that has to do with any debate that we have had on the issue, and I don’t see how it impacts my statement. You can oppose people’s agenda for different reasons you know. For instance; I generally hold Israel for a nation that is relatively free, and humane along the lines in the OP, yet I oppose Sharon’s policy vs. the Palestinians. Meanwhile I deplore the lack of the same qualities on the PA side AND oppose their policy vs. Israel. Degrees in hell, I guess you could call it. This is not liberalism or leftist december; it’s being aware of real politics.
Sparc
“We don’t have to wonder. Israel followed this very policy after the Camp David accords. What happened was that Israel’s enemies built up sarge stores of weapons. When they had enough weapons, Arafat delcared an inmtifada. They’ve been murdering Israelis every since.”
This is , as I have said several times, a most dubious account of what happened after Oslo. The fact is: both sides broke their agreements and acted in bad faith and both sides deserve some of the blame for the break-down of negotiations at Camp David and after.
This is clearly shown in this excellent account in the NYTimes which I have put up before:
http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/sontag3.html
"Arafat and Sharon act totally opposite on a host of important issues, from religious prejudice to women’s liberation to the death penalty. "
I am curious: what exactly is the differenc between Arafat and Sharon on issues like religous prejudice and women’s liberation; I believe Arafat’s wife is a Christian(not 100% sure of this) and I haven’t read anything to believe that he is any kind of fundamentalist religious bigot. Of course there are other problems with the man but such is also the case with Sharon.
Not from the news reports I’ve read in the English version of Ha’aretz. I will admit that a single act of violence did not generally trigger every walkout. However, it remains that Israel consistently (persistently) has walked away from every set of talks using the excuse that they won’t deal while there is violence going on. They are, effectively, telling the extremists that they encourage violence for the purpose of ending the talks. The typical Palestinian-on-the-street has no reason to believe that Isael will ever negotiate in good faith, because that person knows that any nut can get Israel to quit.
Nusseibeh (and there have been several others, but I can’t remember their names) is not merely a moderate. He is also well-respected throughout the region for his adherence to principle. Being one of the few Palestinians to declare certain topics off-the-table does not make him one of the few moderates; it does indicate that Israel is willing to silence even (only?) their best supporters among the Palestinians.
Now, I may have overstated the case (since I’m having trouble finding the names of the others), but I would chalk that up to reading too many of december’s black-or-white threads.
Sharon heads a regime where Muslim citizens have full rights, identical to any other citizens. There are IIRC Muslims in the Knesset. Arafat heads a regime where Jews are not treated the same as other citizens.
Sharon heads a regime where women have the same exact rights as men. Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel from 1969 until 1974.
Women are unequally treated in many Arab and Muslim countries. E.g., at my wife’s university, some female Muslim medical students want to get their MD without ever viewing an entire man’s body, because that’s fobidden in their culture. I would guess that in Arafat’s regime, women may also not have equal treatment with men.
It seems to me that you are confusing the breakdown of negotiations (the subject of your article) with the adherence to and results of the Oslo Accords. AFAIK, december’s remarks are factual - if you have any evidence that it is untrue, please show it.
I think they’ve had a harder line about that since Sharon is in office. Under Barak there were temporary breaks, at most. Results were, as mentioned, remarkably similar.
I’ve already responded to this - I’m not sure what you’re adding.
OK, a start. But even if there were others, they were not clearly not in control of the PA. So the suggestion that the corruption of the PA is due to the Israelis has no merit.
Also, what is the meaning of your parenthetical “only?” remark.
Ah, never let your opponents get into your head…
I disagree. (See tomndebb and CyberPundit’s posts above. No need to repeat.)
So… the assertion that moderate elements are being prevented from establishing influence is “absurd” because… they haven’t any influence? You’ll have to explain that one again; I’ve missed your point entirely.
I guess it’s hard to fight human rights abuses when you’re busy bulldozing houses, bombing apartment buildings to assassinate military leaders and obstructing humanitarian aid organizations.
Cite please, for the “lengthy period.” Definition please, for “left alone.” This spin is not credible. (I don’t doubt the promotion of hatred on Arafat’s part; I think it’s asinine to claim he or the PA were ever “left alone.”)
Certainly there’s no reason for believing the PA will clamp down on extremists as long as extremism is seen to work. There’s also no reason to believe they can be capable of cracking down on extremists if Israel continues to undercut away their means of doing so.
Could you point me to whoever made that suggestion? I’ve seen two points argued regarding the OP’s take on PA corruption:
a) Criticism of Israel’s policies is NOT support for Palestinian corruption
b) Systematic disruption of Palestinian social and economic structure serves to perpetuate corruption within the Palestinian Authority.
I’ve seen no one claim that Israel has caused such corruption.
As a practical matter, those in control are/were not moderates. You are asking that Israel give more concessions and more power to a violent entity (i.e. the PA) based on your speculation that moderates would possibly gain influence. This is not reasonable.
It is also not reasonable to focus on the Israelis not allowing the PA security to crack down on violence, when at times that they did have opportunity to do so, they did not.
See my exchange with tomndebb
**tomndebb ** illustrates my point about criticizing Israel while excusing Arafat. He complains about Israel having arrested Nusseibeh, who, he says, “…is not merely a moderate. He is also well-respected throughout the region for his adherence to principle.” Now, there is debate about whether Nusseibeh is really a moderate. Furthermore, if he broke the law, he should be subject to arrest. However, I will give tomndebb the benefit of the doubt and assume that Nesseibeh is a moderate who deserves to be free.
Arafat and the Palestinians have killed, not just arrested, hundreds of Palestinian moderates, not just one. tomndebb focuses on the Israeli arrest of a single Palestinian moderate, but ignores all the others. What are the names of the Palestinian moderates killed by Arafat’s regime? Were any of them well-respected? Were any of them noted for their adherence to principle? Could they have helped improve the lot of the Palestinian people? Would they have supported a real peace agreement?
See what I mean?
Blind and ugly propagandists for ethnic cleansing might keep their fucking yaps shut.
Yes, after a segment of Zionist militias did its level best to expel as many Arabs as possible. Not inherently unreasonable to be frank – one does not make an omelet without breaking some eggs – but hardly the sort of situation which breeds good will. Not to say that good will might have sprung up, but willy
We can leave aside the expropriations, always for “security reasons” of course, the other small insults and larger insults to the Arab population, including population removals.
Again, given the situation, handled about as well as one could hope for (see US and the Japanese in effectively the same time frame) and frankly not that terrible in comparison with other, similar situations (think the Indian partition) but no god damned Disney film either.
Full, second class citizens. Again, not to take away from Israel trying to make good, but the record is hardly unblemished.
IIRC c. 1948 we have fairly decent rights in Lebanon etc. In any case, one is a European colonial society, the others are not. Women, on paper, had fine rights, more or less, in Algeria. Didn’t make the Algerians love the French occupation any more. Same with Senegal. Two different issues in the end, however much one may wish to utilize the issue.
Oh this is rich. Jobs were made available. Gastarbeiters. As the (Israeli) mayor of Jerusalem said, “Hewers of wood and drawers of water.” It is indeed rich to see this sort of ad hoc justification. After expropriations – see caveats above and let me note that the body of Arab governments have a rather worse history all in all in re respect of property rights – the P pop is supposed to fucking grateful that they get to be house sandniggers?
December’s “Good Massa” complex is not solely reserved for blacks – he kindly extends it to sand niggers.
In December’s world, I rather would imagine the lazy Irish should have been glad that my dear English forebears extended them the courtesy of allowing them to work the estates as manual labor. Good to their servants and all that.
Israel’s “good treatment” – something that can be disputed in the context of actual history rather than Zionist romanticism, with all due caveats noted above – is a non-issue in regards to Arab attitudes in general and certainly not something that Arab dictators, autocrats etc. “fear” as some kind of example. The issue is the Arab obsession with colonial history and the deep sense of injustice – some of it which has real basis (one has but to study the ‘priviledges’ Europeans got for themselves in place in Arab countries and the abuses thereof to understand the origins of Egyptian, for example, anger. Of course, this history has post-colonial connections but to put this in this fantasy world “oh they hate us for our freedoms” bullshit (the same self-regarding fantasy framework in re al-Qaeda) fundamentally misunderstands Arab society, general political motivations and real frameworks of politics for Arabs. To be brutally clear, the fact that Apartheid era blacks may have enjoyed an average a slightly better standard of living in South Africa (fallout from a more industrialized economy) did nothing to make other Africans love the Boers or challenge the independence era leaders. Those of you who think in these frameworks have clearly never been on the ground.
Why do you engage in empty posturing, ignorant and poorly conceived? Why do you remain so close-minded and ignorant? Why do you find it impossible to posit a position which has some reasonable grounding in fact and logic?
As for Bosda – if you know little or nothing about Arab politics it is best not to characterize…. Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, even Bahrain are freer politically and socially. Good democracies, nope, but not that bad when it comes right down to it.
As for Izzy’s question:
If one has something more than a passing familiarity with actual action, rather than nationalist propaganda, one might have noted the arrests of such figures as Baghrouti, who I have never read as being ‘dirty’ and moderates such as the head of al-Quds univ. A clear pattern. One might also point to the policy of using Hamas during the 1980s – and the odd kid-glove treatment it rec’d until very recently.
Ah, but we can just play the game of label everyone ‘extremist’ or some such and then we don’t have to talk to them. All the better to engage in mass deportations and take over the West Bank.
I see that you are willing to change subjects and take anything at all out of context to make your points.
I have noted that as a practical matter Israel has disrupted the ability of the Palestinian people to develop a center. I have not excused Arafat for being nasty. I hold Arafat as responsible for this mess as Sharon. The difference is that no one on this message board is arguing that Arafat is an innocent. You are the one who has proposed genocide simply because the Israeli political culture is superior.
As Collounsbury has noted, (supplying a few of the people I could not recall), Israel is, indeed, destroying (deliberately or accidentally) the potential leadership of a Palestinian center.
If Arafat is actively and personally supporting the terrorists (as I think quite possible), then Israel should arrest him and bring him to trial with the evidence, either in Israel or (if jursidiction could be established) The Hague. To “charge” Arafat with violence while playing patty-cake in his compound at the same time that one is arresting people who have actually supported Israeli demands and initiatives does suggest (not prove) a deliberate effort on the part of Sharon to avoid peace.
Asking Israel to continue talks despite extremist violence has historical precedence in Ireland and Spain. I do not claim that is is a guaranteed solution. However, it would seem to have more chance of success than perpetuating endless violence or engaging in genocide.
December,
You have moved from confident assertions that the personal positions of Arafat and Sharon are “diametrically opposed” on religious tolerance and women’s rights to generalizations about Arab societies and speculation about what a future Palestinian state would look like. Obviously you don’t have any evidence for your assertions.
“Sharon heads a regime where Muslim citizens have full rights, identical to any other citizens”
In theory perhaps but it widely accepted that Arabs face discrimination in the provision of public services and are very uncommon at senior levels of government,business etc. Sharon’s coaltion includes right-wing zealots whose statements about Arabs make ,say, Jesse Helms look like a civil-rights hero in comparison.
"Arafat heads a regime where Jews are not treated the same as other citizens. "
There are no “citizens”, Jewish or otherwise, under Arafat’s control and there are unlikely to ever be too many Jewish citizens in a Palestinian state. However many Palestinian Christians support Arafat’s PLO and some senior Palestinian figures like Hanan Ashrawi are Christian. That alone refutes the idea that Arafat is a religious fundamentalist or for that matter some kind of Taliban-style oppressor of women.
As I said there can be many legitimate criticisms of Arafat. The problem with Israeli apologists is that that they seem incapable of restraining themselves and indulge in absurd exaggerations just like you did. Then when disinterested observers try to set the record straight they are accused of being pro-Arab. Of course Palestinian apologists do the same but they are much thinner on the ground in the US.
Izzy,
The article talks a little bit about the pre-Camp David situation as well. In any case Israel continued building settlements in large numbers after Oslo which was at the very least a show of bad faith as well as a violation of UN security council resolutions. It also broke various interim agreements particularly to do with deadlines for withdrawl. Both these were part of the reason why the Palestinians were intensely suspicious of Israeli motives during Camp David and part of the reason those talks failed.
From http://www.freebarghouti.org/bio.html
He might be honest though - these are two separate issues, as I’ve noted earlier. But he is at this time no moderate - I don’t think you can rightly assume that his arrest is some sort of plot.
I don’t know about the Al-Quds guy.
What was the policy of using Hamas during the 80’s? (And I’d like a basis, rather than speculation). My impression is that not much attention was payed to Hamas because they did not have much influence at the time - as they became more and more prominent, more attention was payed to them, as one might expect.
CyberPundit
There’s a difference between bad faith and not adhering to the terms of the deal. (Why is it bad faith anyway?).
It is true that the Israelis broke some deadlines for withdrawal, though they ultimately gave up control. But the Palestinians delivered nothing or almost nothing of their end of the bargain. What kind of a deal is it if only one side is expected to deliver - and that side being the side that is making the greater concessions? Doesn’t the fact that one side is completely ignoring their end of the bargain allow the other to avoid compliance as well? that’s how all deals that I know of work.
(BTW, I’ve forgotten what the issue was with the withdrawal timetables - if you remember fill me in).