So I’ve done a little reading about the Vietnam/Cambodia occupation.
First, the situation is not exactly analogous because the Vietnamese invaded at least partly because the Khmer Rouge managed to kill 1/4-1/5 of Cambodia and kill thousands of Vietnamese in cross-border raids. This after the US/Vietnam War in which Cambodia was run over indiscriminately by both sides. The Vietnamese occupiers did encounter continuous resistance, but I am not sure that it was a popular resistance – in fact I’m sure much of the populace was glad to see the Khmer Rouge displaced. The Khmer Rouge continued to fight, to which the Vietnamese responded by not only attacking military targets but also civilian refugee camps. This resulted in forcing around 80,000 civilians into Thailand and surprise, ended with injury and death to hundreds of civilians.
And guess what. Part of the reason that the Vietnamese were despised was because they settled in some estimates up to 1 million Vietnamese in Cambodia (out of a prewar population 7.5 million - around 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge). This is about 5 times what Israel has accomplished in 3 times less amount of time of occupation.
I don’t know if any two events in world history are comparable point-for-point, as all analogies break down. But it sounds like the Vietnamese had an easier job of occupation than the Israelis and didn’t do much better than the Israelis. The Vietnamese certainly did better than their predecessors, but Pol Pot’s Cambodia is one of the worst human tragedies ever.
Yes. The Vietnamese puppet government was much better than the Khmer Rouge, one of the worst regimes in history. We should also note that after the invasion, the U.S. turned to supporting Pol Pot.
There is a huge difference there, though. Not to apologize for Vietnam–I don’t think they had the right to import civilians into Cambodia. However, Vietnam did not go into Cambodia, destroy villages and import their own citizens in to build their own villages on top of the destroyed ones. Vietnam did not create a police state in Cambodia where the resident population had to pass through checkpoints to cross from one side of a village to another. Vietnam did not intentionally destroy Cambodia’s infrastructure–in fact, they helped to build it up. Vietnam did not routinely send missiles into villages as collective punishment whenever a Khmer Rouge attacked Vietnam. In every particular, Vietnam’s occupation was much more humane than Israel’s.
Remember it was the allies who created Israel in the first place. You can’t blame the Israelis for this. It was a big mistake, and now the UN should fix it.
Unfortunately the US has been throwing fuel on the fire ever since.
Please give me a cite where Israelis are bulldozing Palestinian villages simply to put Jewish ones on top of them. Specifically the IDF bulldozing villages and the Jews moving in. The only place I can think of it happening is in Hebron and perhaps Gaza, where houses have been bulldozed for security zones. I’ve never said I agree with settlers, but usually they park their trailers on top of unoccupied hills and set up shop.
Israel has built up the infrastructure of Palestine significantly. This includes a modern highway system and water, electricity, and sewage. But things have changed in the past two years. Also, the establishment of martial rule in the territories has only happened in the past two years in response to violence. Again, reactionary. It hasn’t been like that for 30 years.
Attacking civilian encampments where insurgents are camped out does in some respect seem like collective punishment. It sure flushed 80,000 civilians into Thailand, and something tells me they weren’t all running towards the ice cream truck rolling by.
Again, there is not a lot of information out there on the Vietnamese occupation, but I really don’t see how it is better on “every particular.”
No, Israel has bulldozed down many a house in order to put up a settlement. Sharon, in particular, was a notorious demolisher of houses before his murderous ass was kicked out of the army for his collusion in the slaughters at Sabra and Shatila.
Exactly wrong. In fact, Israel has consistently tried to destroy the Palestinian economy and culture. They made it illegal for Palestinians to drill wells, for example, and also outlawed the picking of olives. The main industry in the West Bank was the olive trade, and Israel consciously destroyed it.
Chumpsky
Again, cite? I don’t necessarily doubt what you are saying, but I just want a cite.
To address the olive harvest, it is a complicated but ugly issue. Basically, groups of settler thugs were attacking Palestinians harvesting their olive crops. They were ugly incidents and stands as one of the foremost reasons for international observers in the territories. The incidents went unprosecuted for about a month, when some settlers were arrested. At that point, there was a resolution passed stopping the olive harvest not permanently but for 24 hours. After this, there was a tremendous public outcry and the IDF were ordered to protect Palestinian olive pickers. http://www.meretzusa.org/olives.shtml
When Effi Eitam banned approval of new wells in October, it was because the PA had declared a “water intifada” – they had refused to live up to deals brokered with Israel on polluted ground water, pirate hookups, hoping to pollute Israeli ground water, etc. Basically, the water situation is a mess and the ban on new well approval (not on drilling but on approval of new drilling) was to basically make the PA take responsiblity for their own water. Not only did the illegal hookups prevent water from getting to Israeli settlements, but it also prevented water from getting to some Palestinian villages. I don’t think it was a good way to handle it, and I think it was done for political points for Eitam, who happens to be one of these religious, right wing politicians who IMHO are destroying Israel from the inside. But it isn’t the Israelis making the Palestinians go thirsty so that settlers can swim in their swimming pools.
Your penultimate sentence is either a gross oversimplification or a willingful distortion of the situation.
Typical garbage. edwino asked you for a cite that this was happening, and you simply reiterated your claim, adding the word “many” in as if it proves anything.
“The daytime sky is green.”
“Give me an example of one day the daytime sky was green.”
“There have been many days when the daytime sky was green.”
I am interested in the spin that the US media put on the palestinian conflict.
In Australia, I watch SBS news almost exclusively (SBS is regarded as the quality broadcaster). The impression I have of the situation, watching SBS, listening to ABC radio and talking to colleagues at uni about this obviously complex isssue, is that:
both sides incite violence
the palestinians are treated inhumanely by the israelis
the palestinians are desparate
many israelis are peaceful and disagree with their government
the israelis are gradually taking away land from the palestinian people
the israelis are like the goliath, with technology and money, and the palestinians the david, fighting back with stones
both sides are afraid of backing off
Now I am not saying that this is true. It is my impression from the most believable news sources I can access, and backed up by observations from family and friends that have travelled to the region.
And yes I am simplifying a complex problem, but that is the easiest way to communicate my observations.
[slight hijack] Does mainstream US media tend to show the palestinians as the aggressors? What about non-mainstream?
I came back from Israel one week ago. One of my friends came back two weeks ago. I had an hour long debate on this with him today.
Israel will eventually have to withdraw the settlements, unless there is some kind of Greater Israel where Palestinians are offered full citizenship and rights. I don’t see Greater Israel ever happening, and so to remain democratic, everyone agrees that there will be an independent Palestine. It will eventually happen. I say build your security fence, and take the bitter pill now. Perhaps you have heard my arguments here before. He argued, with plenty of evidence, that Israel would be rewarding terrorism and that a Palestinian state with the current incarnation of leadership would be destined only to continue to be a security issue for Israel. So it is better to deal with those issues now, when they can easily go into refugee camps and arrest people, when they can isolate Arafat if they need to, and worry about the Palestinian side later.
The breakdown in these arguments comes with Barak’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Hizbullah sits across the border in Lebanon and shells Israeli positions in UN recognized territory. I say it is a good thing – there aren’t Israeli boys being killed by Hizbullah in the security zone every week anymore. He said it is a bad thing – that Syria and Hizbullah can call in attacks whenever they want without recrimination from anyone. The UN protests, but they are powerless. Israel sends some artillery back, but in the end the attacks continue.
A unilateral withdrawal will be like that but a hundredfold worse. There are no guarantees on reduction in terror attacks, and Israel won’t be able to go into refugee camps to look for bomb factories and arrest militants. Sure they can stop them on the border (and they do this with Gaza – if you look, very few suicide attacks originate from Gaza), but some are going to get through, especially with absolutely no government or world intervention to stop it. There will be UN recriminations, but no one will be held responsible.
In the end, as a country, you must be responsible for your own defense. It is all well and good to come into compliance with international law, to put human rights on a pedestal, to become a model country, whatever. But if it is going to cost the ability for your country to continue to function, then in the end it is of course not worth it. And Israelis (under the line that Sharon is feeding them) feel that the world community will do nothing for them, even if they are in full compliance with every resolution ever passed by every international body. So they don’t. That’s the simple answer – of course there are other reasons like religious Zionistic entitlement to the land, but the main reason is one of security.
I don’t like playing the media bias game. IMHO, the West rightly puts Israel up on a pedestal. Israel is expected to play by the rules of the West, as Israel is part of the West. It holds the Israeli government to higher standards than the muckier governments surrounding it. It is less a bias thing than a transference thing. I betcha that British nationalists complain of anti-British bias with reporting in regards to the Irish situation. It is just an eye of the beholder thing.
Slant really depends on the media source. I think US sources, in general, are less willing to focus on root causes and instead concentrate on the consequences. With notable exceptions such as NPR, the main focus goes on the aftermath of the bombing and not the conditions in the refugee camp. With an issue so complex, it is hard to get balanced reporting anywhere. I think US sources in general tend to oversimplify based around consequences, and this is seen as pro-Israeli bias. Other non-American sources tend to oversimplify based on root causes, and this is seen as pro-Palestinian bias. Both are oversimplifications.
It’s like asking why the U.S. doesn’t remove Kansas City or Omaha and give it back to its original inhabitants. It has nothing to do with morality or justice, or even democracy. At least 65% of Israelis favor a withdrawal from the occupied territories. But, that doesn’t matter, because there are powerful interests heavily invested in maintaining the settlements. When you add to that mix the fact that the U.S. is heavily invested in maintaining Israel as a highly militarized land-locked air force base in perpetual war, it gets all the worse. Add in a bit of religious fanatacism, and you have the current situation.
Of course Israel should evacuate the settlements. Anybody with an ounce of reason, and who isn’t invested in them, would agree with that. Will it happen? Probably not for a long time.
The thing is that the settelements will probably not be evacuated until Israel’s strategic importance for the U.S. is done. So, yeah, if the U.S. no longer sees any benefit from maintaing its military base, and withdraws support, then the settlements would disappear virtually overnight. I’ll take any bets on the settlements being gone within 6 months if the U.S. ends its support for Israel. Is this likely to happen? Not in the near future. The Middle East will probably remain a vital strategic area for global domination for many years. Given these realities, the U.S. will try to maintain its military base. The only thing that could really end it is a massive movement in the U.S.
As far as I know, the US does not maintain much military presence in Israel. I am unaware of any US military bases there, although US naval ships may use Haifa. So again, cite? Next, you say landlocked – Israel has ports on two seas. Clarification?
Lastly, I think Bush has been so spineless to let Sharon walk all over him with regard to the Israeli situation. It is obviously true that Israel has needed to guarantee its own security. But the extent that Sharon has avoided negotiations is unforgiveable. Bush says one week that he supports peace talks between Arafat and Israel. Sharon the next week says the there can be no peace with Arafat. Bush the following week says there can be no peace with Arafat.
The US and Israel collude but I think that the US has become fixated on Iraq and the Israeli situation is best swept under the carpet until the Iraq situation is finished. I don’t think this is to the benefit of anyone anywhere, but I could never really expect more out of Arafat, Sharon, or Bush.
I would like to make some rebuttal to your statements
By whom? Please cite an independant source for such an opinion. (BTW SBS has less than 5 per cent of the market, so you’re making quite a serious allegation about your fellow-Australians’ taste). Remember, SBS is the network that chose to screen the viciously distorted series by John Pilger. Pilger is a supporter of Saddam Hussein, if that’s any guide to his “fair mindedness”
Back to you …
You have cited as your main sources of information three consistently left-wing, pro-Palestinian organisations. SBS is as above, the ABC, like the BBC, has had a long and convoluted love-affair with Arafat and the PLO. Universities both in Australia and the US are notoriously anti-US and anti-Israel.
there’s a “cycle of violence”. From my perspective, the initiators are the terrorists who kill civilians. In return, the Israeli army is faced with the task of trying to find the perpetrators (hopefully before they get to kill and maim) inside densely populated areas. The real question is intention, not result. I don’t know of any deliberate actions derived from Army policy against civilians. There have been many deaths of civilians, but the intention and the motive are clearly to stop terrorist action.
define “inhumanely”. In the past 50 years, the Palestinian population has grown from 750,000 to 4 million. They have the longest life expectancy of any Arab population outside of Israel itself, ditto the highest level of education, ditto the rights of women, ditto access to health resources. How does this reflect “inhumane” treatment?
Indeed they are, but the desperation comes from their own failure, over and over again, to accept a fair and reasonable accomodation with Israel. For 40 years, they refused to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, and made it a central plank of their ideology that Israel must be destroyed. The desperation comes from being led by corrupt murderers, who have consistently lied to them and to the rest of the world. Their desperation comes from seeing that a better life is possible - just looking at democratic Israel, but being denied an equivalent choice. In 53 years, there has only ever been ** one ** election!
At last, we agree. Israel is a vigorous democracy. The vast majority of Israelis are peaceful. Do you think we like seeing our children die? Give us a viable choice (not empty promises from proven liars) and we’ll go the extra yard. But that does not mean our government is wrong. They are doing what they are forced to do by violent murderers.
Not true. There was a clear offer on the table in 1999 to vacate 94 per cent of the “territories”, and to make up for the parts Israel needs to keep for security with equivalent land adjoining Gaza. The offer was rejected by Arafat.
Israel consists of 5 million people, surrounded by a sea of 100 million in Arab countries who declare the Palestinians as their blood brothers. We have fought and won 5 wars in 50 years against them all. We win because we have to - the alternative is another holocaust!
Not true. We have made many offers, stretching back to the very founding of the state, only to be rebuffed every time. The question is who should make the first step.
You are completely ignorant of Irish history. Please go and read a book of what actually happened, not “pretty much” what you think happened.
Irish Republicanism never had anything to do with conquering Great Britain.
Get your facts straight before you decide to comment on something.
I’ll prefer for CC O’Brien to tell me whether there are parallels between Ireland and Israel (read The Siege). Or are you a minister in the Irish government, ambassador to the UN, Doctor honoris causa and therefore a more reliable source of information about Ireland than he is.
I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t respond to the points addressed to your last comment, but will take your noncomment on them as a concession. I enjoy discussing with you, because even though we disagree, we can do so with some actual mutual interest in facts and understanding.
I agree with you that unilateral forced dismantlement and evacuation of the settlements would play well internationally. I even agree that the settlements were a mistake in the first place.
But you surely can see how such a move by any Israaeli administration would be impossible in an Israeli Parlimentary democracy under current circumstances? The elephant in the room for Israel, to be dealt with once she is not too worried about security to deal with anything else major, is that the ultra-religious and ultra-conservative (both of whom are growing minorities in Israel) have enough seats to control the balance of power between Labour and Likud. There is domestic battle on hold between secular Israelis, the distinct majority, and the ultra-religious. Settlements have been allowed to keep those groups behind whichever coalition needed their support at the time, with both major parties believing that eventually most of the settlements would have to go. The (IMHO bad) idea has always been allow the settlements for now, don’t fight that domestically suicidal battle for now, and use the settlements as a bargaining chip. The problem is that no one really thought when this first happened that a negotiated settlement would take so long, and the settlers gain inertia with time. Roots gets set and displacing them becomes a more politically costly undertaking (domestically … and you have to get power first).
The only way politically that settlers can be removed is if some semblence of security comes as part of the package. That means either a negotiated peace (tried for and failed), or withdrawl behind a secure wall with the consequent isolation of both economies from the mutual interdependence that would benefit them both.
Such is the Realpolitik in a Parlimentary democracy.