emphases mine
This was written in 1986, and it is remarkable how much O’Brien said then that was prescient, and is fundamentally applicable to the situation today
DSeid
Define for me what is a “settlement”. Is Ma’aleh Adumin a settlement? Is Efrat? Is Tzur Hadassah? It is important to remember that there are no internationally recognised borders between Israel and what the rest of the world calls Palestine. There were cease-fire lines drawn up after the 1948 War of Independance (with the same status as the cease-fire lines between North and South Korea, and between Pakistan and India in Kashmir). They have no legal status as official borders.
UN Resolution 242 calls for withdrawal from “territory occupied”, not “the territory occupied”. Israel has annexed parts of the land and will never give it back. Many of the areas you call “settlements” were Jewish towns that were conquered by Egypt and Jordan in 1948, and have now been resettled. They are not going to be given back. If that is a precondition, then you have no hope of any settlement without full-scale war.
“Fighting back with stones.” That is a lie. That is, unless, of course, you consider bombs to be stones.
ok, for a start, I do condemn all acts of violence against innocent people. If you had read anything I have ever written on the situation in my country on this board, or about Israel/Palestine you would know that I condemn all acts of violence against innocents.
I think it a remarkably bad aspect of your character if you assume that because I disagree with you I support terrorists. Go to hell.
I called you on your implication that the IRA wants to conquer all of Great Britain.
Except, of course, for Northern Ireland, where there has largely been a negotiated settlement (imperfect and still in progress, yes, but it’s there).
oh, and As for Connor Cruise O’Brien
May I offer the Good Friday Agreement and the negotiated ceasefire and decommissioning as refutation of his point.
Life expectancy: Palestine 70.2,
These Arab countries have higher life expectancies:
Saudi Arabia 73.3, Kuwait 75.9, Lebanon 73.1, Bahrain 74.0, Oman 72.1, Qatar 75.3, Syria 71.1, UAE 74.9
These Arab countries have lower life expectancies:
Iraq 57.6, Yemen 59.2, Egypt 67.2, Jordan 69.7
http://www.escwa.org.lb/popin/indicators/region/main.html
These figure are for the year 2000, given the dramatic
deterioration in the humanitarian situation (i.e chronic malnutrition http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/reports/Nutritional_Assessment.pdf)
in Palestine of the last couple of years you would expect an even lower life-expectancy today.
Israel can take absolutely no credit for the life expectancy in Palestine, the largest factor in this is the 2 billion dollars of international aid that Palestine has recieved. At this moment in time Israel does not give any money to Palestine and the curfews, checkpoints and destruction of agricultural land by the IDF have destroyed the Palestinian economy, making it whooly reliabnt on international aid.
*wholly reliant
The settlments ar completly illegal under international law and any land annexed by Israel still counts as occupied territory until a peace deal ("…the inadmissabilty of land gained by war"), yes 242 did leave room for negoitation on land issues, but this is a two-way street and it also, if you remember, called for a fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem which Israel has done nothing about.
The hugemajority of settlers had noting to do with the Jewish communities that were abandoned or destroyed in 1948.
I don’t know how you can say something as hypocritical as “Many of the areas you call “settlements” were Jewish towns that were conquered by Egypt and Jordan in 1948”, The vast majority of Palestinians are descendants of those who were thrown out of Israel in 1948, but I don’t see Israel making any moves to let them back in.
jjimm
And there was an Oslo Accord - imperfect and now in ruins. Are you prepared to say with certainty that Northern Ireland will not end up in this way. I certainly hope not, but unfortunately there’s too much in what CC O’Brien says that is borne out by subsequent events.
And ToF, the same goes for your offer. BTW I am not accusing you of anything and your comment on my character is shallow and spiteful. I have spent a lot of time in Ireland, I have many friends there, and I know a great deal about “the Troubles”. You accuse me …
- I am not
- I have
- I never said that - cite or withdraw
- no comment
Do you seriously think that the Palestinians would except any peace deal that didn’t include the complete removal of the settlments?
As long as Israel maintains it’s settlments it will always be seen (by the international community) as not wanting peace.
The Clinton bridging proposols and their extensions at Taba allowed for the annexation of large settlements adjacent to Israel with the ceding of land inside Israel proper to make up the difference. I see no reason why a cease fire line of 1948 is something holy and unchangeable. I see no reason why a reasonable compromise on land exchange is not possible, and I see no reason why Israel wouldn’t keep Ma’aleh Adumim, Efrat, Ariel, and the like. They will have to pay, though.
Two things about 242 for MC Master of Ceremonies and the others who use this as a touchstone. The first is that right under that withdrawal from occupied territories point is the demand for cessation of belligerency and acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist. Right under the demand for a solution of the refugee problem is a demand for territorial inviolability. So it seems neither side is in compliance here.
The second point on 242 is a few questions. Please explain to me how you think Israel will benefit by coming into compliance with her end of 242 if she has to take a large hit into her guaranteed security. Please explain to me how you think Israel will benefit, if even she becomes a model nation under the eyes of the UN, if Israel’s ability to continue as a nation is severely compromised. Next, please explain to me that if terrorism continues or increases after withdrawal, who will come to Israel’s aid?
And was Oslo the last accord of its kind, or is there going to be another one? Of course nobody can say “with certainty” that the GFA will stand, but so far it’s meant 5 years’ less wholesale killing and bombing, and despite the problems and sporadic continuing (significantly lesser) violence, it’s slowly working towards total disarmament (though there will always be dissident splinter groups - terrorism is rarely totally eradicated). And how was this achieved? By both sides talking to the enemy, even while the violence continued. And if it fails, which I don’t think it will, both sides will eventually get back to talking to each other, even while the violence continues.
The occupation in no way increases Israel’s security as rather than concentrating it’s forces along a secure border, it spreads them out over a huge area. The settlments compromise Israel’s security even further as rougly one third of Israel’s armed forces are used for the sole reason of protecting them.
Israel will benefit from peace and improved international relations, but that is not the most important thing, the plain truth is the occupation is morally repugnet and MUST end and until it does Israel can expect the international community to make life difficult for her.
Israel is more than capable of defending herself, she has one of the worlds largest and best equipped armies, this is not even an issue.
Of course terrorism won’t end straight away, but it will seriously decrease and with a Palestinian government that would have greater means to stop it and also a reason to stop it it would eventually die out.
Until there is a total withdrawal by Israel, can you see Palestinian terrorism increasing or decreasing?
Another important difference between NI and the OTs has been lost, the Ulster Catholics are British citzens, wheras Israel has ruled over the Palestinians for the past 35 years without even offering them citizenship. This is because Israel wants the land of they live on, but not them.
Also another difference is in the occupied territories there is a legal system based on racial appartheid, which means any Jewidh person commiting a crime (whether an Israeli citizen or not) will be tried under Israeli civil law whereas any Arab commiting a crime is tried under much harsher martial/military law which offers far less protections against mistrial. I’m not sure of the current situation for Israeli Arabs commiting crimes in the OTs (though any Israeli Arab carrying out what is considered a terrorist action against the Israeli state is also subject to military law) though until 1966 within the state of Israel they were also subject to a paralell legal system (martial law)
www.washington-report.org/backissues/0598/9805080.html (you may have to used the cached version on google to see this)
http://www.btselem.org/Download/1989_The_Military_Judicial_System.doc
MC
Hey, hell I agree with you on most points, but I do see a grain of truth in my friend’s argument. Israel now can go into the camps and round up militants and close down bomb factories. It won’t be able to do this in an independent Palestine and judging from most other regimes surrounding Israel, Palestine will have no incentive to do this themselves. Other regimes use Israel as a focusing point to divert their population’s anger outwards and not inwards on the repressive regimes ruling them. So Arab state have little incentive to support a peaceful resolution to the issue. If the issue by some miracle is resolved, there will always be beefs with the cease fire and withdrawal which will justify continued anti-Israeli sentiments for years to come.
It’s a chicken and an egg thing. Occupation justifies terrorism justifies occupation. I say take the bitter pill now and start playing goalkeeper rather than striker. But recognize that the other side has a legitimate argument. Israel has never gotten a fair shake out of the Arab regimes, simply because Israel makes an easy scapegoat. It isn’t a stretch to see how this could continue nearly unabated for years after a unilateral withdrawal, and Israel will be in a far poorer position to stop it.
Hey! Have been at work all day and mad busy - only managed to sneak in a few posts some hours ago (including that one).
Truly I can see how it’s never going to happen under the current administration. That’s not to say shouldn’t happen, of course.
I understand the concept of not wanting to “reward” Palestinian violence - but turn that around, can you understand how horribly patronising and “no pocket-money for you” that sounds like to most of the world here? At some point, Palestine has to be treated with dignity and equality, perhaps even if it hasn’t deserved it.
Because unless it is given a chance of autonomy, and given that respect and dignity, how is it ever going to become stable, responsible, etc?
My suggestion was not to remove the soliders (although I’d like that) - just the civilians. There is so little justification for them being there, none in fact from the point of view of most of the world.
I understand the religious argument, but christians can’t just go and demand Bethlehem back because they believe Jesus was born there. I can’t go and demand Kenya back because man originally came out of Africa. What is needed is a mature compromise: visitation rights to holy sites, perhaps the chance to migrate there as a Palestinian Jewish citizen, rights to pilgrimage, etc.
Hope that makes sense, and sorry for the delay replying. I’m extra busy right now because I’ve just started working for a brand new English-language channel being launched by a Middle East company. Eventually, it will be available on satellite in the US. When it is, I hope that you guys will be able to see our news, for more insight on the situation from a Middle East perspective. We are interviewing people on both sides of the fence - ie Palestinians AND Israelis, which is unusual for an Arab-based channel as many won’t talk to Israelis. We will also be treating both sides fairly and impartially.
ToF :-3. Irish Republicanism never had anything to do with conquering Great Britain.
rampisad :- 3. I never said that - cite or withdraw
Well.
quote:
Do you think, for a minute, that if the Welsh (for example) started a violent uprising against the English, with the intent to wipe England off the map (and replace it with a Welsh country covering the entire island of Great Britian) that inculded suicide bombings and the like that Israel deals with that there wouldn’t be military action, checkpoints, curfews and the like?
rampisad :- “Substitute Irish for Welsh, and you’re talking history pretty much as it happened. But as I said above, IRA are terrorists, Fatah are “freedom fighters” (the PC position, if you hate the Jews enough).”
So you think that “history pretty much how it happened” is that The Irish started a uprising with the intent to wipe England off the map and replace it with a Irish country covering the entire Island of GB.
Yep you’re a expert in Irish History.
There’s a lot of terrorism wrapped up in Irish History but the Rising wasn’t a act of terrorism BTW.
Sorry about adding to the Hijack
OK, OK, I posted a hypothetical, rampisad pointed out that the hypothetical was similar to the real case of Ireland/England. Nowhere did he say that Ireland tried to take over GB (although he probably didn’t think to make that distinction in his comaprison to my hypothetical). Can we get off of Ireland now, please?
That’ll teach me to think up hypothetical examples again…
Zev Steinhardt
Since 9/11, there has been a dramatic turn for the better in Sri Lanka, with the Tamil Tigers actually going to the negotiating table, rather than using terrorism. Part of the reason, the argument goes, is that the Tamil community, both inside Sri Lanka and abroad, has recognized the newly intensified moral repugnance with terrorism, and has realized they won’t realize their aims through it.
The idealist in me hopes that if both partners return to the negotiating table and actually hammer something out, something similar will happen, in that international pressure upon the Palestinians (and their leadership) will help abate the terrorism. IMO, there would be sufficient incentive for the Palestinians to play ball from the international (re: Western) community if some sort of negotiation process was undertaken.
However, I think the only way to start such a process is through U.S. pressure to force both sides back to the table.