Just like in Lebanon, right?
My list was to demonstrate that Hamas is a barrier to peace, not that the Israeli occupation is just.
What I take issue with is your characterization that all* of the blame for the current conflict lies with Israel and the United States.
Also, assuming tclouie’s scenario is valid (and I think that it is), what should Israel do in the interim between when the occupation ends and when the suicide bombings end?
The single obstacle to a peaceful settlement, since at least 1988 when Arafat announced clearly and unambiguously that the Palestinians granted Israel’s right to exist within the pre-1967 borders, has been the U.S. and its military base Israel. U.S./Israeli rejectionism is the only thing that stands in the way of a peaceful settlement.
This is actually quite rare in foreign affairs. Usually there is blame on both sides for conflict. In this case, though, almost all of the blame for the situation sits squarely on the U.S./Israel.
Work for peace and justice.
Chumpsky, you disagreed that Israel got its additional land, the “occupied territories” through war. Ever hear of something called the “Six Day War”?
You also said that land won though war must be returned to its original owners. Were you aware that after the six day war, Israel offered to return all or most of the land it won in the war, but the Palestinians rejected the offer? If return of their land is all they want, why did they reject that offer, and why do they attack Israel when it tries to engage in “Land for Peace” deals?
You asserted that this was a defensive war, which it wasn’t.
Since there has never been any such offer, it would be impossible for the Palestinians to have rejected it.
Chumpsky, the six day war was a preemptive strike by Israel to protect itself from Egypt, who was building up its forces to attack. UN forces who acted as a buffer between the two countries all withdrew leaving Israel vulnerable to the attack. Other countries like Syria and Jordan joined forces with Egypt to attack Israel. Israel, after trying diplomatic channels, had no choice but to attack in order to protect itself. Please read up on your history.
And let’s not forget immediately prior to the 6 Day War, Egypt closed the Tiran straits (and another one, the name escapes me at this moment) to Israeli ships. Closing international waters to ships is an act of war in itself and it can be argued Egypt fired the first shot with this action.
Oh misinformation knows no thread bounds.
Chumps is quickly making quite a name for his/herself with outright lies, distortions, and accusations of racism. Let’s check some claims against facts (quotes are from http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm unless otherwise noted.)
Claim: Arab terrorism’s sole cause is the occupation; remove the occupation and it will dry up.
Fact: Arab terrorism against Jews long predates the occupation of the territories or even the formation of Israel.
By 1947
In the 50’s Fatah and later the PLO both were formed with the mission to destroy Israel. Terrorism was the method of choice. It is true that terror attacks ramped up after ’67, but this ramp-up predates settlements in any numbers and was more likely a reaction to the failure of traditional armed conflict as a means to destroy Israel.
Claim: The formation of Israel prevented the existence of an independent Palestinian state for an extant “people”
Fact: The identity of a Palestinian people is a recent event, which occurred as a consequence of this conflict. If the Arab states had had their way the land that was referred to as “Palestine” would have been annexed by Syria.
Claim: International Law forbids the annexation of territory won in a defensive war.
Fact: Nope, Geneva Convention and UN Charter say no such things. The Geneva Convention discusses appropriate behavior in the case of occupation, and international precedent accepts the formation of new borders after a conflict.
Claim: Israel runs an apartheid government.
Fact: Israeli Arabs have full citizenship rights. Arabs under occupied control have more rights, freedoms, and educational resources than the vast majority of Arabs living in Arab countries. That however is faint praise. My opinion is that Israel should do much better. Arabs, even Arab citizens, may have full rights, but they are still a disenfranchised minority within Israel – less money for school districts, etc. But this situation is more akin the current state of affairs regarding funding for education, etc in black districts in the US than to apartheid.
Claim: Early Zionists endorsed terrorism.
Fact: Well, partly true. Irgun did commit some terrorist acts, mostly aimed at military or quasi-military targets, but still. And the Stern gang was a bunch of thugs. Early internal pre-Israeli politics was marked by a battle between those who endorsed confrontational and even terroristic means and those who opposed terror methods and aimed at creating a defensive Israeli force. That approach, that of the Haganah and of Ben-Gurion, won out as the method of choice. But the Arabs didn’t commit massacres of Jewish towns without having some Zionists respond in kind. Jews fled from Arab controlled areas and Arabs from Jewish controlled areas in equal numbers and both with good cause. Both abandoned property. The Arab Jews were welcomed into an Israel that didn’t have the resources to absorb them, but did anyway. The Arab refugees were kept in camps to be used as political pawns til this day.
Claim: Arafat tried to negotiate a fair deal during CD2 and Taba but was only offered squat. (I hope that my paraphrasing is considered accurate.)
Fact: As discussed in another thread, this is not the opinion of those who were there and are willing to talk about it. The most cited for his sympathetic to Arafat’s position is Robert Malley. He passes lots of blame around, on Clinton, on Barak, but still accedes that a fair deal was doable if Arafat had come ready to deal with some give and take, that what was on the table included 95% of the West Bank, some areas currently considered Israel, and most of East Jerusalem. Arafat wouldn’t make a single counter-offer. Oh but you think that Malley is a liar. Along with Ross, Clinton (I’d guess), and anyone else who says something that you don’t want to accept.
Claim: “… The only obstacle to a peaceful settlement is the U.S./Israel. Palestinians are not preventing Israel from withdrawing. Israel could withdraw tomorrow if it wished …”
Fact: Gosh, the only obstacle. Hmmm. The fact that Israel has no reason to believe and every reason not to believe that the PA would do anything other than facilitate further unencumbered terror attacks doesn’t have anything to do with it? It appears, however, that a unilateral withdrawl may be the way to go, but only once some security apparatus can be completed to prevent anyone getting into Israel from the West Bank. “The Big Fence” is a poor solution: withdrawl and seperation – for a Palestinian entity really needs Israel to make it, and Israel would be better off with peaceful open borders too – but unless the PA can promise, and be trusted to deliver, real security, then Israel has few other options. And the PA has never even made a good faith effort to constrain terror attacks. And care to tell when there was that prolonged period without terror attacks? Oh, back in the early 80’s there was a relative lull, but the comitment to Israel’s destruction was still a matter of record. Since Oslo the only relative lull was while negotiations looked promising, and that lull was transient indeed.
Claim: Well, I’ll just quote the Chumpster – “… Of course, killings of civilians in Israel proper should be condemned. It is a different story with the settlers.”
Fact: Well “fact” might not be the right phrase on this one. Let’s leave it at “strongly held belief about morality”. Killing curwin or his family. Killing kids in their beds. Is wrong. I can understand a position that says that a military target is fair game. Call it a guerilla war and be prepared for responses. But aiming for civilians to accomplish a goal by instilling terror in that general population is not “a different story.”
Claim: The US underwrites the occupation.
Fact: This from http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22a.html#g
So no US money is directly used for settlement activities and total monies have been reduced to at least partially offset any loan guarantees that may be considered indirectly funding them.
Claim: To believe that attacks against Israel won’t stop if she pulls out unilaterally is racist.
Fact: Nope. It is a reasonable belief based on past actions. The belief that Hamas and Fatah, etc.would lose so much support that it would just whither up is a bit pie in the sky. Hate isn’t always rational and it doesn’t just disappear over night.
Claim: The Six Day War was not defensive.
Fact: As quoted in the other thread (edited some for space this time)
Oh yeah, Israel was doing a land grab when it responded to that build-up and stated goal with a pre-emptive strike.
Claim: Israel never offered to return the occupied territories in return for peace after the Six Day War
Fact:
The nascent settler movement would’ve been aborted then and there if such an offer was responded to. Instead
From there the settler movement became justified in the eyes of the Israeli mainstream.
Cecil, if you ever read these … this fighting ignorance is hard work!
And oh Tars, yup, nut jobs all around. The difference is that those in charge on the Israeli side do all they can to stop them and arrest those culpable.
What ancestral homelands? The Palestinian movement started in December 1920, after the French crushed the Syrian monarchy. Before that, the Arab residents of Palestine under the Ottomans and then the British considered their identity as part of one of the surrounding countries.
Now let me go look for the cite on that. I read that report a few years back, so looking it up could take a while.
Which is why Ariel Sharon is sitting in a jail cell right now, and is not the Prime Minister of Israel.
…oh wait, that’s the fantasy land again.
The lands they had been living on for 1000 years.
The body count says it all. During the past 2 years Israelis have created almost 3 dead Palestinians for every dead Israeli. Israelis have been appallingly careless about Palestinian civilian deaths. I have read far too many stories about women and kids being shot for violating curfew. A few weeks ago an attack on Palestinian militants occurred just as a nearby school was emptying out. I forget how many kids were killed.
If justice is to be served, Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat will share a cell at the Hague while awaiting their war crimes trials.
Chumpsky, according to you, anybody who says anything negative about the Palestinians does so because they’re racist. Ok, then, since you totally condone the Palestinians and place ALL of the blame with the Israelis, then guess that makes you anti-Semitic.
Being largely unfamiliar with board etiquette here, I am wondering if it is OK for me to call you a liar, now that you have called me one. Certainly, every so-called “fact” you presented in your post is a lie. It could be that you are simply mistaken, but it seems more likely that you are lying.
Let us examine them one by one…
First off, nobody has made the claim above, so in the first case, this is a straw man. Secondly, it ignores history. By the late 1970’s, the surrounding Arab states had almost all recognized Israel’s right to secure and recognized borders within the pre-1967 borders. In 1988, Arafat announced clearly and unambiguously that the Palestinians were willing to compromise, and grant that Israel had a right to exist within the pre-1967 borders, granting Israel 78% of traditional Palestinie, and relinquishing claims to land the Palestinians were dispossessed of in 1948, if only Israel would grant the remaining 22% to the Palestinians. It is the remaining 22% --the West Bank and Gaza Strip–that has been the source of contention since then.
Another straw man, since nobody has made this claim.
First of all, it is interesting how you brush under the rug the obvious violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention that Israel is perpetrating by building settlements in the occupied territories. As you insinuate, but apparently think is not so bad, these settlements are a clear violation of international law. Secondly, international law does prohibit the acquisition of new territory in armed conflict, leaving aside the formation of new borders under international auspices. I mean, France did not have the right to annex Germany after WWII. The fact is that Israel has no right whatsoever to the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and its building of settlements in these territories explicitely violate international law.
It is almost unfair to compare Israel to the South African apartheid regime. That is, it is unfair to the South Africans. Even in the worst days of South African apartheid, the South African government did not send in jets or attack helicopters to bomb and strafe black townships. Collective punishment was virtually unknown, but it is the norm in Insrael. Furthermore, this situation will only get worse. Some Israeli commentators have called for the execution of family members of suicide bombers, or for entire villages to be destroyed in retaliation for attacks on Israelis.
And, this doesn’t even count Israel’s racist policies with regard to the Right of Return, etc. It is insane to say that Israel does not practice racist policies. Israel is the only state in the world that is not the state of its citizens. It is the “Jewish state,” where Jews living outside of Israel have more rights than do Araba living within Israel.
It is silly even to discuss this. Terrorism was used extensively by the early Zionists, who never repudiated it as a weapon.
It is not the opinion of the U.S./Israel leadership, but then, they are liars.
This sort of racism is exactly what prevents a peaceful settlement. Only a virulent racist can make the case that if the Palestinians get what they say they want, and what international opinion demands, will they continue to attack Israel.
Killing kids in their beds is certainly wrong, but somebody like curwin is a legitimate target. Unless, that is, you condemn the French Resistance for killing the German occupiers.
A lie. The U.S. provides approximately $3 billion in military aid to Israel. What do you think? when they go into the occupied territories, they leave all of the equipment they obtained through the U.S. at home? Of course, the attack helicopters, the F-16’s, etc., are all used in the occupied territories. Furthermore, we pay for the occupation in more indirect ways. For example, donations to funds that pay for the settlers to build settlements are tax-deductible. This is, then, a tax on the American public for building settlements in the occupied territories.
It can’t possibly be based on past actions, since Israel has never stopped building settlements. We can easily test your hypothesis, though, and see what happens if Israel starts to pull out of the occupied territories.
Every military action is called defensive. Of course, the Six Day War was an aggressive war of conquest. The Zionists had long wanted to take over “Judea and Sumeria,” and had the opportunity in 1967. The claim that this was defensive simply does not hold water.
There never was any such offer. Israel immediately started to “create facts on the ground” so as to make it that much more difficult to return the territory to its rightful owners.