Just to nitpick Sam, let’s remember that there wasn’t anything approximating a “Palestinian” government at the time ( not even the anemic shadow of a government that is the PA today ). It was the surrounding Arab states that largely made their choices for them ( to some extent, allowing that many Palestinians undoubtedly backed them, though I’m hardly sure if anybody knows if it was a majority ). There was no democratic referendum ( part of the problem, both then and now ).
I just throw out the point, to make clear that for many at least, there was never a choice offered to them. Whether they would have accepted or not, who knows.
Of course that’s true, because that was the whole point to the U.N. plan - to set up two separate states. The Arabs refused to accept the deal, instead gambling that they could destroy Israel and have it all.
But let me ask this: If, as we keep hearing, the Palestinians are so desperate for a homeland and have lost hope that they will ever see anything but misery, then why didn’t Arafat accept the Barak plan? I’ll even concede that it didn’t give Palestinians everything they wanted. But given the desperation and lack of hope, why would they choose to not only accept the offer, but to stop negotiating and start another intifada?
Jerusalem. On both sides the biggest ( not the only, I’ll allow, but the biggest - though the ‘right of return’ issues were also sticky ) issue appears to be Jerusalem. My understanding is both sides feared that capitulating on that issue would doom their respective “governments” ( quoted, since the PA only tenuously qualifies ) to collapse. Indeed, some analysts seem to think that Barak’s decision to even consider the Clintonian idea of re-partitioning Jerusalem ( which I don’t think was a particularly good idea either ) influenced the fall ofhis government.
Personally I’m all for internationalization of Jerusalem, but the idea seems anathema to both of the interested parties ( lip service is occasionally paid - I know at least one Palestinian and probably a few Israeli politicians have mentioned it should be on the table - but in practice neither side seems ready to give the idea serious thought ).
So I guess you might say, that while the Palestinians were offered 95+% of the territory they wanted, they weren’t offered 95% of what they considered important.
Personally I would have taken the offer, with the understanding that negotiations on economic and fair access issues ( water right, et al ) would continue. But nobody asked for my opinion.
The Barak offer involved shared control of Jerusalem. But even more importantly, the negotiations were still under way. They were actually dividing up streets in Jerusalem when Arafat suddenly broke off talks and refused to negotiate further.
My personal opinion is that Arafat was bluffing all along. Barak surprised him with an offer that was better than he thought he’d get, and he broke off talks before the negotiations could go further and expose the fact that Arafat either didn’t want what he said he wanted, or was powerless to make such a deal. He may have known that there would have been uprisings in the streets and perhaps attempts on his life if he were seen to compromise even an inch with Israel. After decades of propaganda, the ‘Palestinian Street’ is incredibly militant.
FluidDruid, please don’t prescribe to the same kind of nonsensical crap that has his conflict going as it is. Your objection to Jerusalem being the “capital of the world” being that it wouldn’t represent hindus, buddhists and atheists? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
I think you’re right we should just leave Jerusalem to be one of the most world destabilizing issues on the planet that causes so much strife globally. Instead of thinking that the Arabs will be happy because they have a strong contingent in the UN. The Israelis will be in a better bargaining position because they can’t use Jerusalem as a negotiating piece anymore and it won’t ever again be brought to the table, and they can sleep at night knowing that it’s not under arab control and that arab dynamite won’t be blowing up Jewish holy sites. It’s in a very central location. I’m sure many countries would be happy to see it moved out of New York. Jerusalem is smack dab in the center of the three most populous regions in the entire world, Europe, The Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
Oh but you’re right it doesn’t represent buddhists or hindus as much as New York does.
Please, don’t go into more of this jingoistic “we need to respect all religions bullshit” fuck that, governments should respect NO religions, it should be in Jerusalem just because it will keep people from F***ING KILLING EACH OTHER. If you have better reasons that have to do with real world issues as to why this is a bad idea, please share but don’t say it’s because the city isn’t holy to hindus buddhists and atheists.
Besides let’s get those assholes out of New York already.
How, then, do you explain the First Palestinian National Congress of 1919, and the Third and Fourth Palestinian National Congresses of the 1920s?
The argument that there were no “Palestinians” is specious at best. There were people living in the area called Palestine, regardless of their religion and national origin, and therefore they were Palestinians. It’s the same as saying a Catholic in Munich and a Lutheran in Berlin are “German”, a swarthy man from Nice and a fair-haired woman from Brittany are “French”, and a Swede in Northern Virginia, a Black man from Chicago, and a Japanese woman in San Francisco are “American”. Saying there were no “Palestinians” does nothing to delegitimize the claims of the inhabitants of Palestine who were displaced over the 50 years leading up to the establishment of Israel.
Hell, if you’ve read any Clausewitz, you’d know that the expectation of success is inherent in every attack. But that’s not the sole reason for an attack in any case. As I pointed out in the “Israel-Palestinian primer” thread here, the Stern Gang, Haganah, and Irgun had been committing terrorist acts since the 1920s and commenced a program of invading and destroying villages and expelling the inhabitants once they got hold of British, French, and Czech munitions in 1947. By May 1948, almost 200,000 Palestinian refugees had fled into neighboring countries, carrying stories of what they’d witnessed. What guarantee existed for the neighboring countries that the Zionists were going to stop at a given point? Especially since Ben-Gurion had avowed that Israel would be established by “military preponderance”, not UN partition, in March of 1948.
Look at it this way: if GWB brought back the slogan “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight” this summer, would you be surprised if the Canadians started sending troops into Vermont?
[QUOTE] Originally posted by mswas [ul]
[li]Jerusalem (can’t) be…the “capital of the world” be(cause)…it wouldn’t represent hindus, buddhists and atheists? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. [/li][li]It’s in a very central location. [/li]I’m sure many countries would be happy to see it moved out of New York.
[li]Jerusalem is smack dab in the center[/li]Please, don’t go into more of this jingoistic “we need to respect all religions bullshit”
[li](A World Capital)Should be in Jerusalem just because it will keep people from FING KILLING EACH OTHER.[/li][li]Besides let’s get those assholes out of New York already.[/li]*[/ul]
Putting blasphemy aside for a second, to this I say…
– The various Arab countries jointly attacked Israel, because they feared that Israel would be a belligerant neighbor.
– That fear was reasonable.
You have argured that these points are plausible, because there was a history of conflict in the region. Do you have any evidence supporting that they’re more than plausible theories?
Well, my primary source for the chronology I spelled out in the other thread is at www.alnakba.org - and it has other sources of information there as well.
