Israel Palestine Primer please

[system]

*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.

Keep your baloney for yourself december, your statement is false.

The Palestinian mandate area, future I-P, had some of the best infrastructure in the region, developed under the British.

Now, it is entirely true that the Israelis, with better government and better access to capital, and better institutions to use that capital have done a better job.

It is also true that they have, for good and bad reasons, not invested that in the Occupied Territories, excepting largely infrastructure of general use and tied to settlement expansion.

Now given the risk and uncertainty this is understandable, and further reasonable. However, given a pattern of poor infrastructural investment in Israeli Arab areas, one can not fully excuse Israel from the charge of discrimination in regards to development. Comparative to the region’s governments’ of course, they’ve done a pretty decent job, but there is a definate (if often understandable) pattern of discrimination.

Now in regards to the PA, come on now, this is a bit of apples and oranges. PA gets up and running in 1996. They can’t really attract much investment given the uncertain nature of the as of yet unknown final settlement, the fact, yes fact, of Israeli expropriation of lands for various reasons etc. Add to that of course your very valid points in re the corruption and incompetence of the PA --Arafat was becoming quite unpopular with Ps until Sharon in his incompetant let me do my Lebanon disaster Part II manner made him into a hero-- which boded ill for the future.

On the other hand, some of this criticism strikes me as misplaced, cause there are no virgin births, you have to start somewhere. Maybe in an alternate universe where Israel stopped expansion of settlements and Netanyahu didn’t poison the well, and on the other hand Arafat died of natural causes, the PA would have evolved better.

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.

That last part is an exageration. The PA elite certainly have skimmed off the top, they have been stupidly corrupt, but they’ve also done investments too.

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.

False, my dear fellow, false. Universities do exist, new water treatment lines ahve gone in, a new light mfg center was to have opened in Gaza until the intifada exploded. Hotels were going up. Frankly the rest of the list is a bit specious given the time frame and the impossibility of getting serious investment before a final settlment. My boys looked at it but we couldn’t justify any activities given the risk.

It’s quite fair and reasonable to critique the Arafat administration for its real sins, they are legion and they are a serious, serious barriers to progess, and it is entirely reasonable IMO to stake out the position that Israel has on average been the better player in the region. But exagerating to the point of near falsehood strikes me as purveying the sand-nigger stereotype and I’m getting rather tired of seeing that sort of stuff here.

[system]

BTW Olent, there is indeed a nasty, disturbing anti-Jewish thread through the Palestinian and Arab discourse on Israel, so give it up on this point.

I see it as something that can be healed and overcome with time, if the festering wound of the present state of affaires is ressovled in an equitable manner, however it is real and above all among the Islamists it is truly disturbingly ugly.

However, as I noted, my experience in the region suggests to me that there is also a deep core of respect for what Israel has achieved which could in the proper circumstances heal this situation. Could. I wouldn’t place money on it, but there is the potential. Unfortunatley the elites, the educated elites are often the most posionous in their commentaries, spreading this disease. I find it disturbing and a real problem.

Well, back to work.

BTW: I want to make it clear that I support the general thrust of december’s comments in that the PA has been as much a barrier and enemy of progress, but I don’t like the exageration. (Also of note of course is the piss-poor record that Jordan and Egypt have in developing their countries – and the territories when under their admin. Piss-poor so while I did critique Israel for a pattern of discrimination, it is of note that on pure development grounds they have often done better even with that discrimination. That, however, doesn’t help the anger that builds up in response.

[december]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**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.

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? **

Let’s take this one point at a time, summarizing Olentzero’s points in bold:

1. Israel was given more money than the Palestinians. So what? Palestinians were given plenty of money. Their leaders stole it and pissed it away. That’s not Israel’s fault.

2. 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 True. Other Palestinian leaders also didn’t build an economy. Also, the wealthy neighboring ARab states did little or nothing to help.

In the early 1950’s, my immigrant family had little money. I recall going door to door in my neighborhood in the Bronx collecting pennies to plant trees in Israel. Other children did the same. Why didn’t Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. use some portion of their huge oil fortunes to help the Palestinians get an infrastructure and some opportunity? Their lack of help wasn’t Israel’s fault.

3. 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. I didn’t mean to imply that it was all Arafat’s fault. However, it’s chutzpah to use the word “scapegoating,” while you casually blame Israel for the all the Palestinians’ problems.

4. 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. The point is, money was given to them that could have been used to create advancement, but they failed to take advantage of it. Israel didn’t have the basic amenities either in 1948. If the Palestinians and their Arab supporters had used their effort and resources to build infrstruture rather than to attack Israel, the Palestinians could have become just as wealthy as the Israelis today.

5. And just because there hasn’t been anything advanced for Israel to blow up doesn’t mean that Israel hasn’t blown up anything. Sure, there have been attacks on both sides, beginning with Arab attack on Israel in 1948. Israel succeeded in building a prosperous economy despite the attacks; the Palestinians didn’t.

Olentzero, if you could show that there was a Palestinian plan for economic growth and the the plan had been thwarted somehow by Israel, then you’d have an argument.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by Daniel *
so you agree with me that your comment was off-topic . . . I answered it anyway.

No, I don’t agree that it was off-topic. A common argument about the Palestinian situation is that all Arabs hate all Jews, and I disagree with that.

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?

The attacks in Europe were not explicitly linked to anyone identified as Arab, nor were there any statements made linking the attacks to groups connected with the Palestinian struggle. There are no countries in Europe that have a history of aggressive Zionist territorial expansion, and that is the crucial difference. The Palestinian struggle can acquire a veneer of anti-Semitism by opportunistic bigots looking to make a name for themselves and to wield some power, but the roots of the struggle lie elsewhere. The same cannot be said for the attacks in Europe - the roots of those lie firmly in anti-Semitism.

I think Collounsbury addressed the point of Palestinian infrastructure and economic development quite well - he apparently has a little more personal experience with the subject - so I consider that matter settled.

[edwino]

I am a pro-Israeli moderate on this issue.

I see wrongs done by each side, I recognize the differences in situation on both sides, I can see how peace would be mutually advantageous.

But, as Collounsbury said, arguing that there is no anti-Jewish propoganda in this whole thing is shutting your eyes to the evil reality of the situation.

In 1948, the Jewish population was largely thrown out of the Arab neighbors of Israel. Israel absorbed many tens of thousands of refugees throughout its history, from Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc.

From 1948 to 1967, the Jews were thrown out of East Jerusalem and all Jewish holy sites were summarily destroyed.

The Jews have a legitimate beef about living under an Arab Muslim regime. Arab Muslim regimes have shown no kindness since the Ottoman Empire (not Arab) towards their Jewish populations. Certainly not since 1948. What Olentzero is calling for is basically the establishment of another Arab regime in Israel (by creating an Arab majority by import of 4.6 million refugees). In short, giving the Palestinian nationalists everything they ever wanted and taking away from the Zionists everything they ever wanted. In all probability, creating a situation where a Jewish population is oppressed and repressed.

The world supports homelands for repressed minorities. It is good human rights sense. NATO went into Kosovo for the reason, the UN into East Timor. And this is just the past 5 years.

There is nothing special about borders – most modern countries are mishmashes of post-colonial wranglings and peace treaty compromises. They encompass multiple ethnic groups. And we have had a lot of problems in the world because of it. While I am not arguing for gerrymandering the world, I do think it makes sense to divide ethnic groups who are at each others’ throats and let them govern themselves. This means tolerating a Jewish homeland in Israel, no matter what wrongs you see it its creation.

Lastly, don’t spew this bullshit about the Palestinians were forced into suicide bombings. There have been more nationalist struggles in the past hundred years than you can possibly count. Most of them involved harshly repressed minorities under terrible conditions. And very few (I can think of only one – the Palestinians) of them resorted to suicide bombings against civilians to promote their cause. Military struggle, nonviolence and peaceful protest, and political negotiations have worked wonderfully in the past. I can see no reason except religious zeal (which has now been bastardized by the Palestinian cause in such organizations like Fatah – the last few Fatah bombers they say were not extremely religious) to blow yourself up in the middle of a dinner for elderly Jews. It accomplishes jack shit, except condemnation and the spread of terror. Praising people who do that does nothing except destroy the value assigned to human life. Palestinians have not been pushed by Israelis to the point where they need to blow themselves up to make a point – that is a total lie and baldfaced propoganda. They have been pushed by insane idealism backed by religious fanaticism to think that suicide bombing is the most rewarding course of action.

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *BTW: I want to make it clear that I support the general thrust of december’s comments in that the PA has been as much a barrier and enemy of progress, but I don’t like the exageration.

I was basing my comment on articles I’ve read, like this one by WaPo columnist Michael Kelly:

**Promises but Never Peace **
On July 1, 1994, Yasser Arafat entered Gaza to establish the Palestinian Autonomous Region… I went as a reporter to Gaza a few hours before Arafat arrived, and I stayed there for about five weeks…

Arafat’s entry into Gaza was an object lesson: a purposely uncaring display of brute power. He arrived from the Sinai in a long caravan of Chevrolet Blazers and Mercedes-Benzes and BMWs, 70 or 80 cars packed to the rooflines with men with guns. The caravan roared up the thronged roads and down the mobbed streets, with the overfed, leather-jacketed, sunglassed thugs of Arafat’s bodyguard detail all the time screaming and shooting off their Kalashnikovs to make their beloved people scurry out of their beloved leader’s way.

This was the whole of the Palestinian Authority from the beginning, an ugly little cartoon of Middle East despotism. There was never any pretense of democracy, of rule of law, of a free press, of a working system of taxes or courts or hospitals. There was never any real government. No one ever bothered to build an economy or create jobs or even pick up the trash or pave the streets. There were only security forces – many, many of these – and villas by the sea for Arafat’s cronies, and millions of dollars in foreign aid that seemed to always turn up missing, and prisons and propaganda. And in the middle of it all: “President” Arafat sitting in a room – surrounded by waiting sycophants and toadies and respectful ladies and gentlemen of the press – and complaining.
<snip>
Meanwhile, Arafat’s government has exploited Israel’s permission to establish a police force to instead build a guerrilla army…

Collounsbury (Also of note of course is the piss-poor record that Jordan and Egypt have in developing their countries – and the territories when under their admin. Piss-poor so while I did critique Israel for a pattern of discrimination, it is of note that on pure development grounds they have often done better even with that discrimination. That, however, doesn’t help the anger that builds up in response.

If this means that many Palestinians and Arabs resent Israel because of its success, then I agree. In fact, this mean-spirited screed says the same is true of European leaders!

… Jews were working hard, getting ahead, inventing things, prospering, thinking for themselves. The more European welfare states stagnate and the more the Islamic dictatorships stagnate, the more they both hate Israel. And the USA.

We make their program look bad. And it’s the same program! An elite in the glossy halls of government will issue orders, and all will be happy and prosperous and stable. Same concept in Brussels and Bagdad. . . .

If Israel was an improverished Third-World command economy, they could probably grind up Palestinians to make Purina Pig Chow, and none of the activists or Arab brothers would say a word. Didn’t Syria wipe a whole city off the map to get rid of some troublemakers, and where-oh-where were our activists then ? … (emphasis, mine)

This is from a web logger; hence the inflammatory style. I don’t particularly agree with his POV.

Still, it’s hard to find a flattering explanation for the difference between the European reaction to the current Israeli campaign vs. their lesser concern over the 1982 Hamat massacre, when the Syrian army killed tens of thousands.

[system]

*Originally posted by december *
I was basing my comment on articles I’ve read, like this one by WaPo columnist Michael Kelly:

Good, I was basing my on actual economic data. You do recall it’s my job to keep an eye on this, actual economic data. I can’t seem to get into my EIU account remotely to give you the numbers, so you’ll have to wait for the raw data on actual flows until Monday – not some economically illiterate columnist’s half-assed characterizations.

The fact of the matter is the Occupied Territories did not recieve good amounts of investment, above all in Arab areas, during the occupation. That’s 67 to present. Obviously Arab states couldn’t bloody invest in the occupied areas, eh no? Politics.

I might add that the famous oil wealth doesn’t kick in until the 70s.

Now it is quite valid to note that the wealthy Arab states tended to talk big, but kick in little. (they promised around 5 bill for the PA, less than a fifth actually showed up so far.) But then the whole Arab world points to the Gulfies as hypocrites. On the other hand in these sorts of characterizations all sides tend to forget the effect which Gulfie prefrences to Palestinians had in terms of capital xfers. Further to be fair, circa 1973 none of these states (Gulf) had any infrastructure to speak of --they were fucking nomads in majority until that point, so one has to allow for them looking out for their own folks. That is not to deny that the idiots pissed away mucho dinero or that they didn’t promise much deliver little, but too many people fall into the Rich Arab stereotype and forget how far these dudes had to come.

I have not a touch of a problem with busting on them, but be fair and make sure you keep the context.

If this means that many Palestinians and Arabs resent Israel because of its success, then I agree. In fact, this mean-spirited screed says the same is true of European leaders! This is from a web logger; hence the inflammatory style. I don’t particularly agree with his POV.

What fucking ever december. I ain’t gonna bother with your half-assed smear of the Euros.

The Arabs resent Israel for a lot of reasons, success has a bit part in that, but a lot of other things go into it. I’d have to write my response in re Dex which I promised in order to develop this and I’d rather go out and get drunk and celebrate my pitch home run presently so I’ll defer once more.

Still, it’s hard to find a flattering explanation for the difference between the European reaction to the current Israeli campaign vs. their lesser concern over the 1982 Hamat massacre, when the Syrian army killed tens of thousands.

Whatever, bis.

[Olentzero]

]Originally posted by edwino
**Lastly, don’t spew this bullshit about the Palestinians were forced into suicide bombings. There have been more nationalist struggles in the past hundred years than you can possibly count. Most of them involved harshly repressed minorities under terrible conditions. And very few (I can think of only one – the Palestinians) of them resorted to suicide bombings against civilians to promote their cause. Military struggle, nonviolence and peaceful protest, and political negotiations have worked wonderfully in the past. **

Would you consider the activities of Haganah, Irgun, and the Stern Gang as part of a nationalist struggle? The Stern Gang was the group behind the assassination of the British resident minister of State, Lord Moyne, in Cairo in 1944.

Where does the activity of the Irish Republican Army fit in? Military struggle? Certainly bombing pubs and buildings in London don’t count as nonviolence and peaceful protest. Even the independence struggle in India was marked with pockets of anti-British terror throughout the decades leading up to 1947.

Were there suicide bombings by Haganah, Irgun, the IRA, and Indian nationalists? I don’t know. But there were certainly terrorist acts committed by all of them - and they came at times when the struggle seemed the most hopeless and desperate. Terrorism only becomes logical to those in the struggle when nothing else seems to work, and the people they’re fighting against seem too powerful. This is the case in Israel, and their latest round of armed intransigence lends credence to those Palestinians who argue that Israel will stop at nothing to get its way.

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
** Obviously Arab states couldn’t bloody invest in the occupied areas, eh no? Politics. **

Could you expand on this point, Collounsbury?

Thanks

[december]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
**Terrorism only becomes logical to those in the struggle when nothing else seems to work, and the people they’re fighting against seem too powerful. This is the case in Israel, and their latest round of armed intransigence lends credence to those Palestinians who argue that Israel will stop at nothing to get its way. **

What is Israel’s way that they will stop at nothing to get?

We know they offered a Palestinian state 18 months ago. We know they haven’t intiated attacks against the Palistinians. (Their critics contend that they over-reacted to Palestinian provocations.)

So, Olentzero, what IYHO is Israel’s goal?

[berdollos]

Better than anything I have heard on TV or read recently!

[edwino]

Olentzero:
Notice I said “suicide bombing” not terrorism. Suicide bombing carries an implication that plain terrorism does not: the oppressor/occupier has pushed people to the point of desperation so that all they can do is blow themselves up amongst civilians. That is an unreasonable assertion.

Terrorism has been used often, as you pointed out. I just don’t think it has ever had good effect. Certainly the reason the British are negotiating for peace in Ireland isn’t because of a few bombs in pubs. It is mostly because life is a living hell for British soldiers there and Sinn Fein political negotiations have been remarkably persuasive. The reason the British got out of India wasn’t because of the power of scattered Indian terrorism, it was because of Gandhi. And most of the reason that the British got out of Palestine was because of political negotiations by the Zionists and Arabs. After all, it was a UN mandate.

It doesn’t change the tact of your debate. In effect, what I am reading is that Stern Gang/Haganah/Irgun terrorism and the refugee situation following the 1948 war were so morally repugnant that Israel has no right to exist. Instead, we should give all of the land (in effect) to Palestinians. They are basically morally immaculate since everything they have ever done is justified in light of Jewish/Zionist provocation (never mind the Mufti of Jerusalem, the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and the Hamas/Islamic Jihad/PFLP/Fatah terrorism since the 1960s).

In the event of a Palestinian majority in Israel, I can guarantee that the Jews will be run off the land on dubious claims of ancestral ownership. The Jews will be made to financially recompense every single one of the 4.6 million refugees for hardship and land lost. The State of Israel would be bankrupted by individual claims as well as reimbursement to the Arab states incurred in housing the refugees from 1948. The Jews will be forced quickly into a repressed underclass as their property and land is seized and redistributed. How do I know this? Read the Palestinian proposal for the refugee solution forwarded at Taba.
http://www.mideastweb.org/Taba.htm

6. a. A Palestinian refugee is any Palestinian who was prevented from returning to his or her home after November 29, 1947.

b. Without limiting the generality of the term “refugee”, a “refugee” in this Agreement shall include a refugee’s descendants and spouse.
…
27. Real property owned by a returning refugee at the time of his or her displacement shall be restored to the refugee or his or her lawful successors.

28. In case where, according to criteria determined by the Repatriation Commission, it is impossible, impracticable or inequitable to restore the property to its refugee owner, the refugee shall restituted in-kind with property within Israel, equal in size and/or value to the land and other property that they lost.
    …

29. The State of Israel shall compensate refugees for the property from which they were deprived as a result of their displacement, including, but not limited to, destroyed property and property placed under the custodianship of the “Custodian for Absentees’ Property”. Compensation should cover loss of property and loss of use and profit from the date of dispossession to the current day expressed in today’ s value.

30. The State of Israel shall also compensate refugees for suffering and losses incurred as a result of the refugee’ s physical displacement.
    …

31. Pursuant to its responsibility for the compensation to the refugees, set forth in Article 30, Israel shall provide the funds needed for such compensation. These funds should be transferred to the International Funds described below and disbursed by the Fund and the Compensation Commission in accordance with this Article.
    …

32. The State of Israeli shall pay compensation to the state of Palestine for the Palestinian communal property existing within the internationally recognized borders of the State of Israel.
    …

33. The refugees host countries (i.e., Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority) shall receive compensation for the significant costs they bore in hosting the refugees.

[system]

*Originally posted by december *
**Could you expand on this point, Collounsbury?

Thanks **

December
(a) Investing in the Occupied Territories was hardly possible on a meaningful level given Israeli security concerns in re Arab money coming (which I would say were probably justifiable)
(b) Investing in the OT given the political situation would have, for the Arabs been rather like investing in pre-1990 South Africa for folks concerned about the Apartheid regime. (Let me note with care that I am ref’ing their perceptions, not taking the position that the comparision is justified per se)

Frankly, it would have been accepting the situation. Further, given the IDF and Israeli authorities were expropriating lands and so forth for a variety of reasons right to the present, it hardly is an environment where such investments were a good idea.

Now even if they had access to invest it strikes me one would have seen under-investment anyway, which is to say some investment surely but probably along the same corrupt lines that things happen in most of the Arab world.

I have not a single problem with pointing out the two-faced hypocrisy of the Arab states and their empty promises, what I do have a problem with is the exagerated stereotyping. Even if there were good governments, the Arab states collectively are not that rich and not that capable. Israel has had a number of advantages --no fault of theirs and not a fault per se of the Arabs in re their better access to capital.

So, I’m just asking for reasonable, balanced criticism.

In the same vien, I’d like to exception to Olentzero’s characterizations of Israel. They are unfair.

There have been bad things going on from the Israeli side, the expropriations being the worst. However, Israel has tried more often than not to be a good actor in a bad, bad neighborhood. Even the present strategy by Sharon is not without some basis – it is self-defeating and myopic but the Israelis could do much worse.

In re the suicide bombings… No none of the people you cited used them. These are new and disturbing trend which I don’t think are justifiable. I can see violent resistance to Israel, I can understand and agree with distrust of the Sharon end of the political spectrum, but these tactics are wrong and self-destructive for all that I understand the roots.

However, it is useful for all to look back to the events leading up to 1948 and reflect how easy it is for ‘nationalist’ movements to fall into this. Zionist groups engaged in some bloody, nasty terrorism which included towards the end some nasty anti-civilian attacks. Or the assassination of the UN rep for which Israel never punished anyone, but rather played the arrest and then release game itself. The positive thing is that Israeli civil society has developed to the extent that authors such as Benny Morris (no friend of the Ps even) can write critical histories of such events and Israeli society can face up to problems. That is truthfully absent from the Ps. And the Arab world generally. Of course, as I have said often enough given the events what can one expect? These things don’t have virgin births, it takes time to heal and distance. Look at how often old nationalist propaganda is voiced here.
Let me also add my voice in support of Edwino’s post and note that as repulsive as Zionist terrorism was at times, Israel has come face to face with it. The Arabs have yet to come face to face with how they expelled/forced out/otherwise persecuted their Sephardic Jewish pops, in their typical incompetent way playing into their “Zionist” (roooll eyes here) enemies. I have sympathy for the Ps but to claim that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist is stupid for what do these poor Sephardis do? They may not have been Zionists in 1948 but they got no fucking place to go now, and frankly if the Ps want right of return, then Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen have to face up to what they did to their Jewish pops --ruining their prior histories of relatively decent relations with their Jewish pops.

Morons… Total morons.

[system]

BTW I do think that some kind of compensation committee is a good idea although if the Arabs wanna play the ever-expanding charges game, Israel should play it right back with Sephardi compensation claims, land claims etc.

There are ways to ressolve this equitably, but both sides need to be whacked up side their thick skulls and unfortunatley the truth is the Arabs have thicker skulls at the moment.

[Olentzero]

Originally posted by edwino
Suicide bombing carries an implication that plain terrorism does not: the oppressor/occupier has pushed people to the point of desperation so that all they can do is blow themselves up amongst civilians. That is an unreasonable assertion.

Then what pushes some Palestinians to suicide bombing?

I also scrolled back a little after reading your post about the Palestinian proposal at Taba. Your position seems to be that the Palestinian proposal is unreasonable and that Israel was right to refuse. Why, then, do you castigate the Palestinians when they refuse settlements they see as unreasonable?

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
Then what pushes some Palestinians to suicide bombing?

This seems to me to be a fair question.

Thomas Friedman gives one answer here. His argument isn’t really a killer one, though, IMO (though I happen to buy it, as far as it goes).

Joseph Lelyveld presented a better treatment in the New York Times Magazine on 10/28/01. (Unfortunately, you can’t get it free online). Briefly, Lelyveld points out that suicide bombing is not a desperate act done by independent individuals. Rather, it is a strategy conducted by organizations, which provide ideological and material support for this strategy. Individual motivations vary; it is the institutional structure that allows the practice to flourish.

1. Kamikaze pilots provide another example of this practice.

2. Some suicide bombers have religious reasons for the practice.

3. Saddam Hussein has upped the reward from $10,000 to $25,000 given to each suicide killer’s family.

4. There are a fair number of kiosks in the region which display the pictures of suicide killers (for sale). So, the practice is perceived as respectable or even heroic, as far as I can tell, not as a desperate act of a half-crazed individual.

5. Another factor is that societies with large families (8 kids rather than 2) are often more disposed to warlike behavior. Societies that have undergone a demographic transition, in contrast, often find it more difficult to (for example) support imperialistic practices (eg. US & Vietnam, but also the USSR vs. Afghanistan). This theory is not mine, and frankly I’m not entirely convinced of it. But it’s worth a mention.

6. There are videos extolling the benefits that accrue to the suicide killer’s family. Look at the nice new home they have! Look how proud the parents are!

<Insert condemnation here.>

[edwino]

*Originally posted by Olentzero *
I also scrolled back a little after reading your post about the Palestinian proposal at Taba. Your position seems to be that the Palestinian proposal is unreasonable and that Israel was right to refuse. Why, then, do you castigate the Palestinians when they refuse settlements they see as unreasonable?

Very simply. The Palestinians rejected with no counter offer. By counter offer, I mean one at least partially deviated from their original standpoint.

It seems as though Barak bent over backwards to try to put together a compromise that would be at least a reasonable starting point for negotiations. These included difficult, difficult sacrifices for the Israelis, from (basically) complete withdrawal to 1967 borders, internationalization of Jerusalem, and a partial settlement on refugees. The Palestinians didn’t budge an inch. It seems as this is just the culmination of a pattern repeated since Oslo.

If you have arguments otherwise, I’d be happy to hear them.

About suicide bombers. I read the Friedman article cited by flowbark. I kind of agree with it (not totally) as well. I think it is based on a corrupt relgious interpretation. The original suicide bombers were extremist Muslims looking to kill infidel pigs and get into heaven in the process. Glorification by the society of the suicide bombers as shahids, righteous martyrs, has recently led to the adoption of this practice into non-religious organizations like Fatah. It was inevitable if you consider the praise and reward heaped on these murderers (promised to the bomber and given to their family).

Kamikazes were different. That was a corruption of death in war is honorable. They never targeted civilian populations, as that was (I believe) dishonorable. Sure they are both suicide and they are both bombings, but the target makes all the difference in the world. Celebration (and reward) of murder of the innocents by suicide only serves to degrade the value of human life on both sides of the Green Line. Death is always in battle, even if the opposing soldier is a 10 month old baby in her mother’s lap or a grandmother sitting down for Passover dinner.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Just a clarification.

I agree that the Kamikazes were different and that it difficult to build a civil society on the foundations of suicide killers.

My point, though, was that suicide as an instrument of war is not new. Suicide as a method of killing unarmed civilians may be a new development, however.

[Olentzero]

*Originally posted by edwino *
Very simply. The Palestinians rejected with no counter offer. By counter offer, I mean one at least partially deviated from their original standpoint.

OK, a further clarification is in order. If the situation were the reverse, and the Israelis were the ones that refused to budge an inch from their original proposals, would you support them in that?

[Milossarian]

Anybody else watch “Meet the Press” Sunday? They had a top advisor to Sharon, and the PLO’s top rep in America.

If I was understanding the PLO rep correctly, the most important things they want are autonomy (?) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

I’m not sure if he used that word. Therefore, I’m not sure if they want an independent Palestinian state that includes those two areas. Or predominantly Palestinian authority of those areas within Israel. Or what.

My question is this: look at a map. The West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights are decidedly not contiguous. If the Palestinians want true autonomy, how is that going to work?

While this PLO rep on Meet the Press didn’t have much to say about the Golan Heights (which would tentatively indicate to me that it is at least a negotiating point that the Palestinians would consider sacrificing for some larger goals), he was very adamant about the West Bank and Gaza. Which have quite a mass of Israeli land between them.

With the exception of island nations, where it’s water preventing contiguity (is that a word?), the only example that jumped out at me was Alaska being part of the U.S. And I’m wondering how Israel and Palestine could ever get to a U.S.-Canada level of friendly coexistence to make that work. (And, technically, if the U.S. and Canada became hostile to one another, Alaska can still be accessed via the ocean, and without any violation of Canadian airspace.)

And with Jerusalem and to a lesser extent Bethlehem being in the West Bank, I’m also unclear as to what the Palestinians expect there. Israel will never give up full control of Jerusalem, period, it seems to me.