Sure. But I don’t remember any serious Palestinian negotiating side sitting at the table with Israel and mediators and claiming that Israel shouldn’t exist. This non-existence clause is the classic red herring in the problem, it is not a negotiating marker but an extremist position that at the most is used as a technique for pre-negotiations (though the contents are quite extreme, it is normal to attempt to lower the other party’s expectations as much as possible before beginning formal negotiations, which also provides considerably more latitude for movement). Regarding Jerusalem, there were the beginnings of various proposals and solutions being considered, including the suggestion to make it a UN protectorate accessible to all parties.
I don’t follow, I’m afraid. But I don’t think Israel’s right to exist is a red herring. Justifiable concern prompted by what various neighbours have said over a period of years, and by the fact that they have backed up their words with actions, is something that Israeli negotiators will bring to the negotiating table. The same as the Palestinians will bring their sense of injustice and their low self esteem. These are facts that have to be understood.
Not that simple by any means. Terrorist movements, in most cases I can think of, are primarily in response to perceived injustices, neglect, problems, etc. (that goes for Hamas and Islamic Jihad as equally as al Qaeda, IRA, Brigate Rosse, KLA, etc.). One can easily say the only party responsible is the terrorist, but I said that in this case both parties are guilty of similar objectionable approaches. Where does that leave everyone, other than engaged in a fruitless exercise of reciprocal finger-pointing?
Besides, if terrorism is a response the first thing to do is identify the causes of terrorism and see if they can be reduced or eliminated. I mentioned how the leading factors in the current problem include the dispossession of an entire people and the execrable conditions they have been forced to live under for decades. Logically, rather than run frantically around the hydra lopping off heads as Israel insists on doing, one should examine the cause of this undesirable response. Give them as much of what they want as possible, stop raining down rockets and putting up walls, and help problem populations to improve their lot; right there you stand a very good chance to greatly reduce the underlying causes we are talking about. You still have to deal with the existing momentum of the situation, but at least you could do so in the hope that it either would not renew itself, or if it does that it would be less severe.
You bring up Islamist stupidity, which is fine. But you don’t seem to consider the equally serious counterpart problem of ultra-Orthodox Jewish stupidity, which is also involved here. My goodness, have you met some of the fanatics who insist on living on settlements for no other reason than it is their land given to them by their god, blah blah blah? And what makes me especially angry are those who have never even been to Israel, but who implicitly support such fanatic stupidity.
Complete bullshit attitudes that are every bad as those of the other side. On both sides. I know it’s easy at this point in history to focus on the evils of Islam and its radicals, but let’s not get blinded here.
I repeat my original objection: are you aware of any serious party involved in the process sitting down at the negotiating table and claiming as a core demand that Israel has no right to exist, that they should pack up and leave entirely? I don’t believe the future existence of Israel is in question; the red herring I refer to is the extremist position of eliminating Israel, which to me is more useful as an informal background bargaining chip (incidental to boot) than as a serious demand. It’s a propaganda platform used to incite resistance to the perceived injustices of Israeli policies. Focusing on that particular item results in a red herring, that’s what I mean (the rough equivalent would be the assertion that “terrorists just hate us because of our freedom” – a statement that given serious consideration also leads nowehere).
Again, I’m a little unsure of what you mean - really wish to signify - but I do believe that fear of those who wish (or have wished, it doesn’t make much difference given the direness of the wish - leopard and spots, after all) to see Israel/Israelis disappear is a real one in the circumstances, and always will be.
Thus, even when the old generation of Israeli leaders are all dead, I think the new leaders will proceed in all negotiations with the Palestinians and whoever else comes to the table with great caution. But this is not a bad thing. Unrealistic expectations and pie in the sky thinking fit better into that category.
What? I don’t understand what remains to be addressed. it seems every discussion on this subject is reduced to the classic non-existence clause, or (in the case of US and al Qaeda) the non-freedom clause.
There are Israelis who want to put up the Wall to contain Palestinians in as little land as possible, give them nothing in the way of concessions, and just be done with them (Sharon used to be just such a fool, now he is a fool who realizes that by giving a little he might get away with a lot). Heck, much of the Wall – which was built with a land-grab/consolidation philosophy like the settlements – are already completed. But rather than talk about how all Israel wants to do is close the Palestinians in a pen, and use this meme as the prime negotiating platform, people try to focus on realistic discussions, involving more legitimate communication; Palestinian negotiators come forward publicly and/or directly with a list of demands that do not include terminal complaints about how Israel just wants to box up the Palestinians and make them go away.
You seem to be putting far too much emphasis (as the hardliners and hawks very conveniently do) on the fact that some Palestinians really do want to see the annihilation of Israel. So what? Has that been submitted as a core demand? Are mediators working with the Palestinians to achieve this bombastic goal? Of course not. There are plenty of Saudis and Egyptians who wish to see the US reduced to smoking rubble, but that doesn’t seem to stop dialogue and good relations with the US.
Palestinian talks with Israel are predicated on the continued existence of Israel. No doubt most Palestinians would prefer if Israel didn’t exist in the first place – the same is probably true of many Israelis – but pipe-dreams are just dreams, not viable positions. Palestinian negotiators and officials know this, as should Israeli counterparts – unfortunately Israeli hawks frequently play up the “right to exist” as some kind of fundamental issue, though it is mere propaganda. If anyone in this situation has to exercise a right to existence it is the Palestinian people, who are being kept in limbo for half a century! Israel already exists and will continue to do so.
Really Abe. I see no attempt by you to go for the middle road. In your drive to distance yourself from the rabid pro-Israel faction you go all the way to the other side. Your assessment can be boiled down to: on the one hand we have the good guys. On the other the bad guys.
Of course the only solution is by negotiation. But until a deal is made, it is understandable that Israelis do their best (or damnest if you want) to protect themselves. Perhaps you find their methods wrong, but you can’t hardly begrudge them the attempt.
You say the Israeli right has foiled any attempt at negotiation. Do you think the latest negotiation under Clinton was conducted in ill fait by the Israelis? Did you not see an honest attempt to reach a workable solution? Do, did, you not see a problem on the Palestinian side re. a trustworthy negotiation-partner? The problem with the issue of Israel’s right to exist is that while Arafat and his leadership may have accepted it (on a good day). Many powerful groups of Palestinians surely never did. And could Arafat or his successor enforce Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al. to back a negotiated settlement with Israel and cease their terror? And there’s the case of the Palestinians outside Palestinian and Israel. Would they ever accept a settlement that did not include their unreserved right to return. Would a negotiated settlement be worth the paper it’s written on if it’s not backed up by the majority of the Palestinian people?
There are two issues re. terrorism purposefully targeting civilians, women and children, that should not be mixed. There is the moral responsibility. This is atomic. Non-debatable. The man who pushes the trigger which fires the bullet into the pregnant women’s head bears all responsibility. I will never agree to any discussion on this. There is no root cause. No disposed people or execrable conditions. Nobody is ever forced by circumstances to execute babies. Then there is the question of what causes such monsters to be created. And yes, here Israel must undeniable share some responsibility – though you seem woefully blind to the Palestinians and their Arab “brothers” own hand in their own misery.
No. I have not (met any orthodox Jews). Also I cannot, except for the one case at the temple mount (Gold-something), remember any instance of orthodox Jewish terrorism. Orthodox Jews apparently don’t go into a Palestinian restaurants and suicide bomb everybody to hell, nor do their demonstrations feature children dressed up with bomb-belts. I can understand those Jews outside Israel who look to Israel as a possible future safe heaven, should anti-Semitism raise its ugly head once again, but I suppose you’re equally angry at the Palestinians who live abroad, and never have set foot in Palestine or Israel. It will undoubtedly be necessary withdraw from them, but why is it that you think a, for instance, German descendant of Palestinian refugees born abroad has a greater right to the land settled thab those people whom were born there, whose parents were born there, and whom have lived there all their life?
I really don’t know why this discussion regularly attracts such simplistic interpretations. Let’s try argue instead of attempting to paint the other side eh? You know the paint job is unlikely to work in any case.
The methods here are the very problems that perpetuate this cycle. Apartheid and collective punishment cannot be expected by reasonable folk to mitigate the problem, any more than militant terrorist resistance (exhibit A, Kosovo). At best these tactics may provide a (very) temporary reprieve, but the underlying causes of Palestinian terrorism will simply be boosted by attempts at violent repression such as collective punishment. Not to mention that the rest of the world is unlikely to view the abysmal human rights situation very favourably – and Israeli officials (pretend to) wonder why the majority of the world consistently votes against them in forums such as the UN.
Some of it was indeed, yes, but if you want to specify in a little more detail I’ll let you know accordingly. If I have time.
And the question – not a novel one for this is exactly the subject of my discourse here – then arises, what are you going to do about the difficulties posed by certain Palestinian factions? Continue raining rockets down them and their closely-packed neighbours? Demonize them and Palestinians in general every chance you get with your powerful government organs? Assassinate them and bystanders on a regular basis? Nice way to build trust. Of bloody course this is not an approach likely to work (unless by “work” one assumes the meaning “reduce oneself to the level of the terrorists”).
These are pointless items to raise, because they are to be eventually thrashed out in negotiations if enough trust and confidence are ever built again.
Really? Then why enter these discussions, since whether you accept to discuss an issue is of little consequence to me? Yet again we see a tragic and very complex issue being reduced to a level easily digestible for the masses, here once more we are given cheap imagery that makes a visceral appeal. Propaganda.
Not that I necessarily disagree with the thinking. But the situation is far more complex than any attempt to reduce it to a matter of immoral baby-killing. Besides, Israeli actions have also resulted in abundant civilian deaths, including mothers and babies. And what’s the Israeli reasoning? Collateral damage? If the Palestinian problem isn’t sufficient evidence, you can see how well that system is working in Iraq. Suicide bombers are criminals, fanatics, reckless bastards normally supported by tight cell networks operating underground, where they have beed driven by necessity. Israel is a sovereign state with an organized military, official policy, and a justice system. Compare the two, and let me know if there has been any change yet in the (dis)ability of the Israeli hardline approach to build the trust and confidence required for negotiation.
Well, take a look at the background of the issue then, and make a genuine attempt to understand why this problem is far too complex to be resolved by macho vicious cycles of violence – or, for that matter, the moralizing finger-pointing that you deploy subsequent to the above-quoted comment. Also consider that a number of the “terrorists” in Israel are actually already in government or have ties to government (I mentioned earlier how a classic Jewish terrorist organization was abosrbed into the IDF). These people don’t need to strap explosive belts on and hike out on suicide missions when they can simply send forth attack helicopters and tanks.
I don’t have a problem accepting the immorality of Palestinian terrorist tactics, but I also do not limit my view to a conveniently simplistic range, because in most of the world where you have the long-term dispossessed/oppressed you will have similar problems of backlash and resistance by any means possible (and the evil few ready to capitalize thereon – once again, exhibit A is Kosovo). I don’t have a problem accepting the right of Israel to defend itself, but I recognize that Israel’s highly objectionable hardline approach merely serves to make the situation worse. You don’t win hearts and minds with rockets. You don’t build trust by bulldozing homes. You don’t establish confidence by shooting into crowds and producing nothing but civilian corpses.
You have to modify the conditions that give rise to these problems. One way would be to remove the goddamned hawks from power in Israel and have someone with a modicum of intelligence and integrity setting policy, not something I think is very likely given the rather strong lobby of the ultra-religious fanatics; another way would be to minimize the long list of Palestinian grievances, improve their standard of living, and generally reduce the base support for militant action. A third way, which has failed to work to date in spite of considerable effort, is to kill every last terrorist – but as I said earlier that’s a seriously one-sided conflict against a many-headed hydra.
Basically.
I think they’d settle. Or at least most of them. Then the rest would stop them from further action.
I did too answer it, right after it was posted. Perhaps you need go back to 2nd grade and take a primer in reading.
:rolleyes: Right. Self termination of Israel isn’t in the cards Zag.
Based on your own fantasy world or…what exactly? What gives you the indication that Hamas is willing to negotiate an equatable settlement with Israel…and that Israel should believe them if they ARE saying it? Historical trends? They don’t exactly make your case. Wishful thinking or your continued attempt to translate your world view onto other groups? Likely.
Its pretty clear from looking at the ACTUAL history of the regions that there will never be a reconsiliation…at least not any time in the near future. My thumb nail sketch of said history (which will hopefully be brief, semi-accurate, and mostly rant free).
When the arabs in the region (notice I didn’t say the ‘Palestinians’) held the whip hand pre-Israel, they weren’t interested in sharing and attempted to terrorize and destroy the jews in the region (see the Hurani Riots…though there are LOTS of examples unfortunately). Unsurprisingly the jews eventually got tired of being slaughtered and groups like the Haganah were formed. There was simply no compromise in the arab leadership (or the average citizen if it comes to it) with the jews, and with continued immigration of jews into the region the arabs simply couldn’t wipe them out, nor drive them from their homes and communities. It was pretty much a stalemate…the jews had tried compromise, the arabs refused…the killing went on and on.
The British were smack down in the middle of the whole mess and really didn’t do much to alleviate it IMHO (I personally think they leaned more towards the arabs for political reasons that had to do with the war, but thats just me). At any rate, fast forwarding through a pile of crap, we get to the UN partitioning the region between the jews and the ‘Palestinians’ (or simply indigineous arabs in the region). The arabs totally rejected this partitioning from the UN and the other post-colonial arab powers in the region mobilized to crush the jews and ‘drive them into the sea’. The ‘Palestinians’ for the most part VOLUNTARILY fled their homes to the various arab armies, greeting them like saviors. Said combine arab armies were eventually defeated (while costing the jews something like 1% of their total population).
Aftermath was that huge groups of refugees were formed on both sides. Jewish refugees of course fled…to Israel. “Palestinian” refugees were dumped into camps, as none of their arab ‘saviors’ wanted to absorb them. The early state of Israel attempted to negotiate with these refugees for compensation for their property or for them to be able to come back to their homes…this was rejected at the urging of the other arab powers in the region (who didn’t want to legitimize the young state of Israel…or even acknowledge it). The ‘Palestinians’ were told to sit tight and await a fresh attack that would destroy the jews and Israel…which they have been doing ever since, until it became appearent that whenever the combined arabs in the region put an army in the field against Israel it was destroyed…at which time they decided to take matters into their own hand and unsurprisingly resorted to what they did before in the pre-Israel times…terror tactics and slaughter of innocent civilians.
To make a long story short (I’m sure the above is full of inaccuracies…its been years since I really studied the history of Israel and this mess) my sympathies lie with Israel for, to me, obvious reasons. There never was a ‘Palestinian’ nation…its fantasy, constructed by the UN to TRY and partition the region between two peoples who, by then, were uncompromising.
This attempt to by the UN was rejected by the arabs of the region who sought instead to impose their own vision through force of arms (several times)…they failed and Israel succeeded. The ‘Apartheid’ situation that Abe keeps bringing up is a situation of the regional arabs own making…i.e. they brought it on themselves by failing to negotiate peacefully in the first place with the then jewish communities and settlements and instead resorted to terror tactics, by failing to accept the UN’s partition solution when there was a stalemate and partitioning made perfect sense, and by their own subsequent actions. In addition, I STILL fail to see why the local arab powers get a pass on all this…why don’t THEY absorb these ‘Palestinian’ refugees (or, why didn’t they when they could have in the past), or at least help them out more? Why, for political reasons of course! Yet, they get a pass. Why is that, when the situation is mostly of THEIR making.
After such a record and such a history, I fail to see how the majority of this mess is laid at the feet of Israel (by the Europeans mostly, and by a seeming majority on this board), and why the regional arab powers don’t shoulder more of the responsibility for the mess they mostly created.
-XT
Remind me again, XT, whether your presentation was supposed to be semi-accurate and rant-free, or selective and biased?
There are two main ethnic populations in Israel/Palestine now, today, at this moment. Get over the childish recriminations, over the who was here first silliness, and over the “stronger legitimate claim to land” bullshit, and try to deal with the present facts already.
Right. No point in looking at the historic contexts, ehe? Lets just forget all that bad (and inconvient) stuff and work from today as if none of it ever happened. And if Israel (who was shaped and molded by all that worthless historic context stuff) refuses to let go of the past…well, they are just wrong, ehe? Oh, and lets put it all on Israel (and as a sop put some on the ‘Palestinians’) while giving the regional arab powers a pass…right?
I’d say my account was semi-accurate, relatively rant free, extremely selective and of course biased…I’ve already said I have a bias on this one towards Israel from my own reading of history. Are you claiming you are unbiased Abe?
-XT
Then peace isn’t in the cards.
Can’t have your cake and eat it too- well, actually, you CAN have your cake and eat it too, but Israel can’t. The only way the Palestinians are going to stop hating them is if they get their land back, even if they have to share it. Things might be rough at first, but they’ll learn and eventually settle (maybe over a decade or two, but its better than what they have now)
Based on my theory that the best way to fight terrorism is to remove the causes for terrorism. Without public support, terrorists will eventually run out of manpower and will, plus the locals would start reporting terrorist activity instead of helping them.
The alternative theory is to keep killing people until they’re all dead.
I’d take a shot at my choice, and tough f*ing cookies for Israel. Yea, Jews got hit hard 60 years ago, and they were persecuted unfairly for centuries… but the world no longer needs a Jewish state. All it is doing is pissing people off and making more persecution.
What right do you have to a nation if you’re religious? I want my pagan nation. They burned all those witches at the stake and shit. We want land and self-government. Just chop off a piece of England or Germany or something.
So ultimately Israel is the loser here. Loses its land, and loses its Jewish character. All for “a chance at peace” which is about as likely as the earth colliding with Pluto.
By the way, you didn’t really answer my question. I said “really,” and “share the land” is not a real answer. How should they “share” the land? The land that they won in a defensive war?
Jewish charachter, phah. That’s such bullcrap. Israel is a disturbance caused by kneejerk, blind, simple-minded reactions after WWII.
Jewish character. What crap. What other countries do we support to maintain their religious character? We just invaded the f* out of Iraq and are engaging in a massive social engineering project to destroy its Arab culture.
Jewsish character. Fuck that. They can still be Jewish, but there’s nothing special about being a Jew that entitles you to an independent state, especially when someone else was living there.
And that’s the best chance at peace they have. The Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. Israel has to accept the fact that it was a bad idea and become a normal nation, not a quasi-religious state.
Israel needing to exist pre-1946, yes.
Israel needing to exist post-2000, hell no.
“Share the land” is a damn good answer.
What is your answer? Kill all the Palestinians? Then what, make a homeland for Palestinian refugees?
Here’s your solution
http://www.zagadka.net/studio/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=352
I think my position, as stated, is not far different from Abe’s. We are both agreed that the right to existence of Israel and the right to their own state in currently occupied lands should be pre-conditions of any talks. What I was commenting on was Abe’s use of the term red herring with respect to Israel’s right to exist. But since he accepts that (Israel’s right to exist), then no harm seems to have been done.
We are also at one in our opposition to the erection of the wall, which is inflammatory and counter-productive.
Should read “and the right of Palestine to their own state in lands they currently occupy”.
Israel means that a tiny portion of the Middle East is not a third-world hellhole.
Israel means that there can be a place in the Middle East where homosexuals aren’t thrown in jail or publicly executed, a place where women don’t need to wear black veils in the heat, where kids go to school and learn about science and math instead of Allah and Jihad, where black people can live without being hacked to death by Arab mobs, where people can have premarital sex and not be hanged from cranes.
Israel fought for its independence and it WON. Israel fought against the whole Arab world hell-bent on its destruction and it WON. It is a sovreign nation, and it can deal with its problems the way it wants. It’s the only part of the Middle East where anyone has real rights.
Israel is also the only state in the region westernized and pumped full of money, corporations, and machinery.
Dunno why we never saw fit to lend a hand to anyone else.