Israel Palestine Primer please

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Jomo Mojo *
Zionists allied with Hitler.
That’s, ummm … interesting.

Stern was a wee bit insane ( MHO ). In his opinion Hitler was a “persecutor”, one of many that had and would always rise to bedevil the Jews. But the British were the real enemy, because by occupying the Holy Land ( and he apparently considered the prospective Jewish State to be everything between the Nile Delta and the Euphrates, taking a cue from a passage in Genesis ), they were aiding and abetting in the Diaspora and betraying Jewish desire to return to their homeland and establish a state. He seems to have been quite single-minded in his belief that the only solution to the unfolding Jewish tragedy in Europe was the ending of British rule in Palestine.

Consequently, negotiations with Axis agents were opened. He didn’t get all that much response from them, as I recall.

• Tamerlane

[edwino]

I’m not going to object to the points that flowbark, John Corrado, and Olentzero made. I think that extreme nationalism of any flavor is bad. I think that specifically targeting innocents is bad. These are no-brainers.

There is a difference, and there was a good Slate article Monday that kind of explored it:
http://slate.msn.com//?id=2063928&device=

The birth of Israel was characterized by extreme violent nationalism, which wasn’t pretty. It was coupled to political negotiation though, from before Balfour. When the eventual negotiated settlement arrived (the 1947 UN Partition plan), the Zionist leadership agreed to it. Sure there were the Jabotinsky-ites and the “shtei godot ha’Yarden” (two banks of the Jordan River) crowd who rejected it (and still do). But the leadership was able to push through the negotiated peace and the Israelis agreed to 1948 borders. After a state was formed, most of the violent extremism was allowed to die out. That which wasn’t was prosecuted under a rule of law or became opposition parties.

For whatever reasons, Arab states have not accepted the negotiated settlements. Blame this on post-colonialism, blame it on Zionist intransigence, blame it on sunspots, I don’t care. The opportunities keep arising, and they are constantly rejected. It is as if the struggle has become more important to Palestinian nationalists than the goal. The leadership in Arafat has betrayed the Palestinian people who just want a peaceful coexistence. He has not accepted peace, nor has he prepared for peace in building infrastructure, schools, sewage, etc.

Say what you will about violence on either side. Neither side is entirely guilt free, and I can’t imagine anyone otherwise. The Stern Gang and the early Irgun and Haganah were ugly, violent crowds. But it is a credit to the Zionist leadership that when the time came to stop fighting, they were able to do so and able to convince their people to do the same. Remember that amongst the ugliest and most violent of the early Zionists were people like Menachem Begin, who signed the peace treaty with Sadat at Camp David in the 1970s.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by edwino *
For whatever reasons, Arab states have not accepted the negotiated settlements. Blame this on post-colonialism, blame it on Zionist intransigence, blame it on sunspots, I don’t care.

Actually, edwino, the reasons why the Palestinians have rejected the settlements is an important point that deserves further investigation.

Here is a map of the proposals outlined in the Oslo accords, and here is a map of the proposals outlined in the Wye accords. To me, it’s pretty clear why the Palestinians ultimately rejected the accords - Israel still had complete tactical advantage over the territory, especially since it retained military control of 90% of the West Bank. The relationship between Israel and Palestine would remain one of severe inequality.

There used to be a great map of the latest round of proposals in a GD thread about Tony Benn, but it seems to have gotten lost after the disaster in February. As I recall it, the PA was ceded a lot more territory, but the same conditions applied - they were broken up by areas over which Israel retained completed civil and military control, and that territory a) had most of the developed infrastructure like water plants; and b) had control over all roads that accessed Palestinian West Bank territory. IOW, Israel would still be able to bring the West Bank to its knees very quickly whenever it so chose. I do not think I’d find that situation tolerable, either, were I in it myself.

[edwino]

Olentzero
The point isn’t just about Oslo. It is about every political offer since 1948. It is about rejecting the offers without counter offers. It is about failure to implement the few offers and cease-fires agreed to. It is about pursuing military versus political means.

You have points about the Oslo and Wye agreements. I’ve seen the maps. Those were not final status negotiations, though. Barak offered a final status compromise with 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza back (according to reports) with recompensation for the last 3% at the last round in 2000. I believe you will find those maps still quite fair. And to ask that the Israelis have security arrangements along the Jordan River and the other borders, given the history of volatility in the region. Again, these were rejected, and again at Taba. The point isn’t so much that they were rejected – it is that they were rejected without a legitimate counteroffer (Arafat’s counter IIRC was full sovereignty over Jerusalem and full right of return, which is a pie in the sky).

It is a story about idealistic nationalism which on one side has largely matured into a functioning ideology operating under a rule of law. On the other side, it has not matured at all, and now the struggle is more important than any goal.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by edwino *
The point isn’t just about Oslo. It is about every political offer since 1948.

Offers which have at their base the legitimization of a state whose existence was supported by British imperialism and whose borders were ultimately set by Zionist terrorism.

It is about rejecting the offers without counter offers.

“Legitimate” ones, you mean.

It is about failure to implement the few offers and cease-fires agreed to.

Arafat does not have total control over the opinions and feelings of the entire Palestinian population. I’m sure he can argue with the leadership of other militant groups if they recognize his legitimacy in one way or another, but he shouldn’t be held responsible for everything the Palestinians do.

It is about pursuing military versus political means.

And the Israelis aren’t? Those two maps I linked to demonstrate pretty clearly to me that Israel’s had military objectives in mind throughout each round of talks.

**You have points about the Oslo and Wye agreements. I’ve seen the maps. Those were not final status negotiations, though. Barak offered a final status compromise with 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza back (according to reports) with recompensation for the last 3% at the last round in 2000. I believe you will find those maps still quite fair. **

Numbers in and of themselves mean little. That 3% Israel wanted to hold on to seemed to be better-developed territory that still encircled the PA West Bank lands, broke it into three pieces, and controlled all roads that gave access to it.

And to ask that the Israelis have security arrangements along the Jordan River and the other borders, given the history of volatility in the region.

I am of the opinion that the way Israel handled its own establishment is a major source of that volatility.

The point isn’t so much that they were rejected – it is that they were rejected without a legitimate counteroffer (Arafat’s counter IIRC was full sovereignty over Jerusalem and full right of return, which is a pie in the sky).

According to whom?

**It is a story about idealistic nationalism which on one side has largely matured into a functioning ideology operating under a rule of law. On the other side, it has not matured at all, and now the struggle is more important than any goal. **

That “rule of law” is law they themselves put in place because they successfully outgunned the locals. The other side has stuck with the struggle because the struggle is pretty much all they have left.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Interesting points, Edwino and Olentzero. But they go beyond the scope of this thread, IMHO. Given the volatility of this subject, (and the existence of other threads on the subject) maybe we could restrict this thread to factual considerations. Just a suggestion, (which I promise not to repeat here). (I endorse the opening of a new thread, should you feel like it.)

[edwino]

Offers which have at their base the legitimization of a state whose existence was supported by British imperialism and whose borders were ultimately set by Zionist terrorism.

Olentzero
Your post (exemplified by the above quote) kind of demonstrates what I am trying to point out here. Your post (and correct me if I’m wrong) basically embodies of unbridled Palestinian nationalism: why negotiate or why accept negotiations if everything is based on unjust premises. You (and the Palestinians) may have legitimate points about unjust actions 50, 25, 10, or even 2 years ago.

But you can’t deny that Zionism can make some of the same points about unjust actions 50, 25,10 or even 2 years ago. Or even last week. But the Zionists, by and large, have moved past these unjust actions and demonstrated a willingness to negotiate.

Your viewpoint ignores the situation on the ground. There are 5 million Jews there now who aren’t going anywhere. Nothing the Palestinians do will change that fact, and your arguments (and the Palestinian ones for the most part) seem to ignore that. Yeah, the borders of Israel may have been partially set by Zionist terrorism and British colonialism. And the borders of any future Palestinian state will have been partially set by Arab terrorism and Arab pan-nationalism.

Take your stance on refugees. I called a full right of return a “pie in the sky.” You answered “According to whom?” Well, there are between 200,000 and 4.5 million people who claim to be refugees. Does a full right of return mean just the 20,000 or so displaced in the '48 war? Or does it mean full right of return for 4.5 million? What will be considered adequate documentation for land ownership if in the days of the Ottoman Empire property rights were basically one step above feudalism? Why is Israel responsible for 4.5 million people who define themselves Palestinians if there is a Palestinian homeland (where they have been living for 50+ years) set up right next to Israel? Clearly even 200,000 violently anti-Israeli refugees are too much for Israel to absorb while still respecting the right of Israel to exist. Which you don’t.

Israel is the only country on the planet which has to still justify its existence after 54 years since independance. Nobody questions the legitimacy of other post-colonial states, for instance South Africa, Congo, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. 5 million Israelis aren’t going anywhere, no matter how vicious their history was, and the Arab world, especially the Palestinians, are going to have to get used to that and negotiate for their rights to live next to them and stop trying to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I agree there were unjust actions with the refugees. There always are when there are mass immigrations, population movements, and wars. But if a Manhattan tribe member showed up with a chest of beads and demanded repatriation to the Upper West Side, would anybody take his claim seriously? Realism versus idealism means overlooking unjust actions of the other side in order to have a tenable situation for both sides. Most Israelis (even Sharon and his government) are committed to the idea of a peaceful state of Palestine lying next to Israel. Most Palestinians can’t commit to the converse.

[edwino]

Ooof simulpost.

But, I respectfully disagree, flowbark.

Look at the OP:

*Originally posted by ivylass *
Israel did not exist until 1946, correct? This leads me to believe that the state was created to give a home to refugee Jews from Europe after WWII. Palestine was upset at having to give up their land with no say-so.

Is that it? I think I’m missing the whole Jewish/Muslim conflict as well…can someone explain that too?
**

The first paragraph (apart from the minor factual errors) seems to be a relatively unbiased presentation of the entire situation. The conflict arises directly out of it: Zionism versus fledgling Palestinian nationalism.

The second paragraph asks how this arose into conflict. Olentzero, if I am interpreting correctly, states that it all rests on a bungling of the situation by the British, coupled with Zionist violence, to which the Arabs responded by demanding their own version of justice out of Israel (namely that the Jews go for a swim). But I hyperbolize.

I, OTOH, am trying to argue that it arose out of competing nationalist struggles: Arab pan-nationalism versus Zionism, both with a goal of having a homeland “from the River to the Sea.” In the 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, Zionism won. Since then, it has matured to the point where it is willing to try to wrong the rights of the past without giving up its core principle of a Jewish homeland in Israel. Arab pan-nationalism, and Palestinian nationalism which followed, has been unable to compromise because they are too fixated on the humiliation of losing in battle, and no goal will satisfy them besides their original ideal: the River to the Sea. Perhaps they crave total victory to vanquish the humiliation of defeat. This is partly due to weak and corrupt leaders, partly due to repressive regimes, and a whole host of other factors. The Arabs, as a whole, have been very reluctant to settle for negotiated peace. Egypt was the first in 1979, Jordan followed up in the 1990s. Now Saudi Arabia has put cards on the table, after 54 years. Maybe the Palestinians will soon do the same.

[barton]

It is useful to keep in mind that the birth and growth of any large nation is going to involve violent nationalism. Israel’s birth is almost peaceful compared to say, America’s.

Mike Duncan
http://www.weeklylowdown.com/

[edwino]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Here is a map of the proposals outlined in the Oslo accords, and here is a map of the proposals outlined in the Wye accords. To me, it’s pretty clear why the Palestinians ultimately rejected the accords - Israel still had complete tactical advantage over the territory, especially since it retained military control of 90% of the West Bank. The relationship between Israel and Palestine would remain one of severe inequality.

Last thing tonight. I swear. Here are maps prepared by the Palestinians to reflect what the Camp David accord proposed.

1. Everything in gray, light gray, or gray stripes would eventually become Palestine.
2. This was an Israeli proposal. No Palestinian counter offer, except the whole all the land, all of Jerusalem, and all the refugees.

[Olentzero]

Now we’re getting into the “two-state” solution. I’m still working my way through my stance on this issue, but as of now I don’t support it.

Firstly, the Israelis saying “The Palestinians can settle wherever they want, but only in the West Bank” is pretty much the same thing as the Ottoman Empire saying “The Jews can settle wherever they want, just not in Palestine”.

Secondly, there’s the disparity of development between Israel and any potential Palestinian nation. The West Bank doesn’t have the infrastructure the rest of Israel does, primarily because Israel has kept it cut off and done serious amounts of further damage with its military escapades.

Thirdly, there is no earthly reason why there cannot be a secular, democratic state in what is now Israel that fully and democratically integrates both Jew and Palestinian over the territory both of Israel and of the West Bank. I certainly don’t support the position that the Jews need to be pushed out of Israel in order to grant every Palestinian that wants one the right of return. I think most of the “push Israel into the sea” is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel which seem to indicate they would rather push the Palestinians completely across the Jordan. IMO, a real indication that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians would be a plan that says “Come, let us share this whole land as brothers with a common interest” rather than “OK, you can have this portion if you agree to let us hold on to the rest of the land we took from you”.

[nswgru1]

So now we get down to the vison of what you would like to see. Your post makes much more sense now.

Olentzero Quote:

the “two-state” solution. I’m still working my way through my stance on this issue, but as of now I don’t support it.

Quote:

Firstly, the Israelis saying “The Palestinians can settle wherever they want, but only in the West Bank” is pretty much the same thing as the Ottoman Empire saying “The Jews can settle wherever they want, just not in Palestine”.

What are you talking about here? That is exactly what the Ottoman Empire did. Have you not read your history?

Quote:

Secondly, there’s the disparity of development between Israel and any potential Palestinian nation.

And in your opinion this is all the big bad Israelis fault. Hell never mind the fact that a good majority of palestinians are hostile to the Israelis. The Israelis government should just let their the bombers and gunnmen into the country without having to suffer the “humiliation” of going though security checkpoints.

Quote:

Thirdly, there is no earthly reason why there cannot be a secular, democratic state in what is now Israel that fully and democratically integrates both Jew and Palestinian over the territory both of Israel and of the West Bank.

I think most of the “push Israel into the sea” is a reaction to the actions of the state of Israel which seem to indicate they would rather push the Palestinians completely across the Jordan. IMO, a real indication that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians would be a plan that says "Come, let us share this whole land as brothers

OMG you really believe this? I haven’t heard anything this absurd in a very long time. Let me point out some already pointed out facts:

1. It completely null and voids both the spirit and the content of the Balfour Declaration.

2. It totally ignores the very reason Jews wanted a homeland in the first place.

3. You can’t really believe that people who are willing to strap explosives to themselves and walk into crowded shopping centers are going to just one day wake up and say hey we can live in what used to be Israel I don’t hate the Jews anymore do you?

I wanted to go back through some of the older post about the post WWI political wranglings that some people put significant weight on but after reading the post again I will just suffice it to say that while Tamerlane and Flowbark post are very very very close to factual correctness there are some things that are not correct and puts a hue of “palestinian” legitimacy to the current events of today. If anybody is interested I will go back and nitpick the inconsistencies but I am not sure it would change anybodies mind.

[december]

**Originally posted by Olentzero Secondly, there’s the disparity of development between Israel and any potential Palestinian nation. The West Bank doesn’t have the infrastructure the rest of Israel does, primarily because Israel has kept it cut off and done serious amounts of further damage with its military escapades.

Baloney!

In 1948 there was no infrastructure in Israel and no infrastructure in the West Bank. The Israelis built an infrastructure, but the Palestinians didn’t.

A lot of money has been given to the Palestinans over the years. Arafat has taken money for himself to live like a king, kept a coterie of dozens of armed thugs around him like some banana rupublic dictator, paid money to buy arms and to support terrorists, etc. But, he has not built the institutions needed for economic and cultural progress. He seems to have no interest in that aspect of governance.

Olentzero blames Israels military damage. Has Israel blown up Arafat’s universities, water treatment plants, heavy industry, manufacturing companies, transportation hubs, mines, financial institutions, and hotels? No. These things have simply not been created by the Arafat government.

Anyone who is sympathetic to the Palestinian people should want them to have a different leader. Under Arafat’s leadership they have no hope of economic advancement…

[sdimbert]

*Originally posted by december *
**Anyone who is sympathetic to the Palestinian people should want them to have a different leader. Under Arafat’s leadership they have no hope of economic advancement… **

I agree, though I would have wrapped quotation marks around the words “Arafat’s leadership.” Anyone want to take a stab at figuring out what sort of government the “Palestinians” use?

[Olentzero]

All right, quickie flyby and then I gotta do some work today.

Originally posted by nswgru1

Firstly, the Israelis saying “The Palestinians can settle wherever they want, but only in the West Bank” is pretty much the same thing as the Ottoman Empire saying “The Jews can settle wherever they want, just not in Palestine”.

What are you talking about here? That is exactly what the Ottoman Empire did. Have you not read your history?

If you’ll look at my original post in this thread, you’ll find I have read my history, which is why I cite this example. If it wasn’t right for the Ottomans to exclude Jewish immigrants from Palestine, what makes it right for the Israelis to limit the Palestinians to the West Bank?

IMO, a real indication that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians would be a plan that says "Come, let us share this whole land as brothers

**OMG you really believe this? I haven’t heard anything this absurd in a very long time. Let me point out some already pointed out facts:

1. It completely null and voids both the spirit and the content of the Balfour Declaration.**

You have got to be kidding me. Let me post the text of the Balfour Declaration here, since you seem unwilling to follow links:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” (Emphasis mine. --O)

Re-read the bolded line carefully and tell me how “Let us share this whole land as brothers” voids the letter and the spirit of the Balfour Declaration.

2. It totally ignores the very reason Jews wanted a homeland in the first place.

You mean the Zionists. Not all Jews agreed with Zionism when it emerged as an ideology, and many still do not today (for whatever reason). Frankly, their reasons for wanting a homeland are completely erroneous and the tactics they resorted to in order to establish that homeland stink to high heaven.

3. You can’t really believe that people who are willing to strap explosives to themselves and walk into crowded shopping centers are going to just one day wake up and say hey we can live in what used to be Israel I don’t hate the Jews anymore do you?

Well, if I believed that the conflict was rooted in some sort of Arab/Jew conflict in general I guess I’d be pretty pessimistic too. People only become willing to kill themselves in suicide attacks because they’re pushed to that point by outside circumstances. Palestinians aren’t bombing restaurants because they hate Jews, they’re bombing because they’ve been pushed into such a desperate situation that they think this is the only way to successfully fight back.

Originally posted by december
**Baloney! In 1948 there was no infrastructure in Israel and no infrastructure in the West Bank. The Israelis built an infrastructure, but the Palestinians didn’t. **

Right, the British let Palestine lie completely deserted and undeveloped for the thirty years they ruled it as a mandate. And the Ottomans didn’t really even know it existed. :rolleyes: There was an infrastructure there before the State of Israel existed. Lack of further development by the Palestinians after 1948 is the result of their displacement by Israel and is in no way attributable to a “lack of civilization” which is all too often ascribed to them.

A lot of money has been given to the Palestinans over the years. Arafat has taken money for himself to live like a king, kept a coterie of dozens of armed thugs around him like some banana rupublic dictator, paid money to buy arms and to support terrorists, etc. But, he has not built the institutions needed for economic and cultural progress. He seems to have no interest in that aspect of governance.

Any money given to the Palestinians, first off, pales in comparison to the kind of aid the US alone has given to Israel - almost $30 billion just since Clinton first took office. Secondly, this whole problem of the lack of Palestinian economic advancement is not a recent development - it definitely predates Arafat’s appointment as leader of the Palestinian Authority, and most certainly his whole political career. Pinning the poverty of Palestinians and the lack of control over what the US and Israel call terrorism on one man is really nothing more than scapegoating.

Has Israel blown up Arafat’s universities, water treatment plants, heavy industry, manufacturing companies, transportation hubs, mines, financial institutions, and hotels? No. These things have simply not been created by the Arafat government.

It’s kind of difficult to build much of anything advanced when most of your population has been stuck in camps and settlements that often lack even the most basic amenities for 30 years. And just because there hasn’t been anything advanced for Israel to blow up doesn’t mean that Israel hasn’t blown up anything. There are still houses to drive tanks through and office buildings to shell from helicopters. Or did you think all those Israeli armaments were hitting just sand dunes?

[Daniel]

Palestinians aren’t bombing restaurants because they hate Jews, they’re bombing because they’ve been pushed into such a desperate situation that they think this is the only way to successfully fight back.

Right, and there’s no better way to say “we don’t hate Jews” than to specifically time a bombing not only during one of the most significant and representative holidays of Jewish life, but also at a specific time during that holiday when families get together and remind themselves of everything they’ve endured as a people :rolleyes:

It’s called the Passover Massacre not so much because of media or institutional bias, but because that was exactly the message the attack sent: the Jews are not being attacked for where they are; they’re being attacked for who they are.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Daniel *
**that was exactly the message the attack sent: the Jews are not being attacked for where they are; they’re being attacked for who they are. **

I’d find that more believable if synagogues in other countries were bombed on the same day. They’re not attacking Israeli Jews because they hate Jews in general. They’re attacking because they (mistakenly) hold all Israelis responsible for the extremism that some Israelis - especially those at the top of the government - display, both in words and deeds.

[Daniel]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**I’d find that more believable if synagogues in other countries were bombed on the same day. **

A bit off-topic, but I’d agree:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/01/synagogue.attacks/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/04/synagogues.attack/index.html

In Europe, mostly France, synagogues were attacked during Passover this year. The more recent article has links to still more articles, which you may read on your own, but I think these two links sufficiently address your comment.

[Olentzero]

Well, no, not really. There’s no definitive link to Palestinian organizations, is there? Synagogues were bombed, a horrible thing. But is it not just as likely that it could be neo-Nazis taking advantage of the situation to further their own anti-Semitic agenda? Your links prove there is anti-Semitism in the world. But it does nothing to prove that anti-Semitism is at the base of the Palestinian intifada.

[Daniel]

so you agree with me that your comment was off-topic . . . I answered it anyway.

You basically said that to support my statement, I’d have to show you the exact same thing happening outside of Israel, at the same time. You even said specifically that synagogues would have to have been attacked.

I showed you: in Europe, during the same holiday, the very hate crime you said should have taken place to show my statement had merit.

In your reply, you take it as a given that anti-Semitism is at the root of the copycat crimes going on in France, yet you refuse to believe that the original attack in Israel timed specifically to take place during the first seder night at a seder meal has anything to do with anti-Semitism?

I’d say that what happened that night shows not only that anti-Semitism is a factor in this whole thing, but that it is perhaps a lot more focused and organized in the Middle East than it is in the situations I’ve linked to.