The previous post (re: conflict stretching back to 1000 BCE) certainly doesn’t give one much hope that there is ever going to be a resolution to the situation. I recall reading somewhere (isn’t that always the way) that there had only been several hundred cummulative years of total peace on this planet.
The PLO definitely has its share of extremists, but after checking out the timeline, it seems that Israeli extremists have put a kink in the peace process quite a few times themselves. I agree with an earlier post that these extremists are to blame for the breakdown of peace accord after peace accord, but you have to wonder how much is done to discourage activity like this. I can’t help but think that everytime one of these lunatics pulls some suicide stunt, that Arafat is smiling on the inside, or am I totally wrong about this?
Good question, Freyr.
Bottom line, it’s an excuse.
Arafat lost the upper hand when he turned down what was the very best deal he would ever get from Israel at Camp David. Everyone in the world except him (and maybe he himself knew) that he would never get a better deal. Once he turned that down, he lost a great deal of international support. So now, in order to shore up support, he uses the one weapon he has left : violence. All he needs is an excuse to set it off. If it wasn’t Sharon’s visit to the mount (BTW, many Jews visit the mount without rioting), it would have been something else later.
Zev Steinhardt
This is one of the most informative threads that I’ve seen yet on the straight dope, but anyway. My point…
Why does Ariel Sharon invoke such hatred among the palestinians? I’m about to quote a newspaper here, so thake this with a pinch of salt:
‘For Palestinians, Mr Sharon’s a special case. No one in the Israeli political establishment attracts quite the same level of hatred. He is indelibly associated with the genocidal reduction of the Palestinian refugee populations in the Shatila and Sabra camps at Beirut 18 years ago. Two thousand people died. Their descendents can be forgiven for being outraged at his brazen presence on one of their sacred sites.’
That may help…
CKDextHavn
I must applaud your contributions to an intensely complex issuer and the contributions and clarifications of other members make this a superb example of SDMB in action.
Thank you.
I don’t disagree with this view, but I think that both negotiating teams at Camp David were ahead of the popular opinion of their constituants. Seeing the possibility of a treaty/agreement was so close it was almost tangible, they were offering compromises that they couldn’t deliver politically (I am not suggesting either side was acting in bad faith). If Arafat had signed he would have been assasinated on his return and Barak would have been politically dead in the water, if not worse (aka Rabin 1995).
I would draw an uneasy parallel with Michael Collins signing the treaty that brought the Irish Free State into being in 1921.
At this point in the cycle the moderates are not in charge of the agenda. I know of no answers nor can offer any placebos.
I have sympathy for the situation of the Palestinian people, though none with their leadership’s methods. The Kurdish people in northern Iraq are in a similarly invidious position, though they don’t get the same international attention (probably because they haven’t adapted terrorism) and are less likely to achieve their objectives of a homeland.
sdimbert’s timeline can be seen directly here…
wooly, Turkey will disagree with you about the Kurds. Wanting to create a state from what is now part- Turley, part-Iraq, the Kurdish Workers’ Party(PKK), based in southern Turkey, have deployed several terroristic attacks against Turkey and the government.
I’ll take your point capacitor.
A similar example to the PKK might be the Basque movement whose activities IIRC are almost exclusively internal to Spain.
May be picky, but the best adjective is Muslim or Moslem as most Muslims take Mohammedan to be offensive.
Other item: Note palestinians are Christian (in various flavors) as well as Muslim.
I was using the term “Mohammedan” to refer to the first generation, the immediate followers of Mohammed, sort of before it became Islam. Sorry if that subtlety was lost, certainly no offense was intended to modern day Muslims.
Also, I go out on a limb here with a prediction. I’ve seen this too often in the last 18 years or so not to wonder.
Karl Marx got lots of stuff wrong, but I think he got one idea right: that economics underlies most of history. It is way too obviously to the economic advantage of both Israel and the Palestinians to have peace in a setting that is economically advantageous to both sides. I therefore suggest that the current difficulties are part of a MidEast bargaining posture, like haggling over the price of a rug in a Middle East bazaar. This tactic has been tried (mostly by Arafat, I admit) time and again, storming out of meetings, letting loose terrorists and rioters.
I don’t mean to understate the seriousness of what’s happening now – this is not as simple as yelling, “My children will starve if I accept anything less than 100 dinars!” But there is, IMHO, a certain analogy. It’s brinkmanship diplomacy; the shopkeeper runs the risk that the customer will just leave without any purchase, but neither Arafat nor Israel can allow that. So it’s threat and counter threat – with loss of life along the way – but I don’t think it will lead to war (however much Iran or Iraq may try to incite war). I think the bargaining process involves two steps forward, one step back, in a deadly dance of haggling.
The mindset of the overwhelming majority of Israelis (regardless of what you read in the sensational press) is that peace must happen. I have to believe the mindset of most Palestinians is the same. And that eventually, economic improvement for both sides will direct the process.
This is an old thread, but I read in yesterday’s local paper that it was the anniversary in 1996 when the PLO voted to annul clauses callng for Israel’s destruction. Today’s paper states that today is the anniversary of the day in 1996 when Israel’s governing Labor Party abandoned its longstanding opposition to a Palestinian state because the PLO annulled the clauses calling for its destruction.
So, what is the status? The above link is out of date and doesn’t work.
The PLO Charter has not changed
The “vote” cited was to give the Palestinian National Council the legal authority to change it. As of this moment–five years later–this has not been done.
The clause calling for the “elimination for the Zionist presence” remains.
Much more succinct than the Wannsee Protocol. . .
A few not at all profound comments/clarifications/disjointed ramblings:
Nixon: Re:Lebanon - I largely agree with your comments. The old “quasi-feudal” structure of Lebanon WAS starting to breakdown in the 60’s and early 70’s among the educated elite in cosmopolitan centers such as Beirut. But you’re quite correct in that since the civil war of the 70’s it has reverted pretty badly, with much of the educated class that could flee, doing so. But I think your demographics are slightly off…
The largest group, population-wise is now the Shi’ite community and has been since at least the late 80’s. Their radicalization has had to do with several factors:
1.) Pre-1980 - They were traditionally the poorest and most politically ( and socially ) marginalized community in Lebanon, mostly living ( at the time ) in the rural, underdeveloped South-East, “far” from the traditional economic/political centers of the coast. Generally they were disregarded by the other factions as the “poor trash” of the state, despite ( in part because of? ) the fact that a high birth-rate eventually turned them into the largest demographic group. Also they were somewhat less feudal, which odd as it may sound, probably contributed to their marginalization - They lacked the “clannish” organization of their compeititors. Their first militia was Amal, which was vaguely socialistic in ideology and interested primarily in redressing the disenfranchisement they felt. It was a large, but poorly financed ( and armed ) group that was mostly a minor player in the fighting.
2.)Post-1980
a.) Being centered mostly in the South, they took the brunt of the Israeli occupation ( not necessarily the initial campaign ). Also…
b.) The Iranian revolution in 1979 introduced a new paradigm, both in ideolgy, and later in resources. As a result Hezbollah was formed with Iranian encouragement and funds( and some tacit Syrian approval ). Originally a tiny terrorist organization, they more and more began to usurp the role of popular militia from the more secular Amal ( not without some shooting ), especially after 1982. Given an constant recruiting aid in the Israeli occupation of the south, an ideological edge by the new rising tide of radical Islamism which has increasing displaced the old socialist ideal in the radical sectors of the Arab world, and a constant source of funds from Iran - They largely succeeded. They are probably the single most dominant militia force ( at least in terms of international pull ) in Lebanon today.
The Maronite Christian’s ( or at least Christians as a whole ) are perhaps still the second largest group ( and still quite feudal ). The Sunni’s are a close third, maybe second ( a little less feudal and traditionally a bit “leftist”, at least in the Nasserist sense ). The Druse are fourth ( and very feudal ), powerful because of their social cohesiveness and well-fortified central location.
Re: Syria vis a vis Lebanon - Hate to say it, but I think the Syrians have a point. Lebanon is about as artificial as you can get and was carved from Syria as a result of French bigotry and bias towards the ( then ) Maronite majority of Lebanon. Not that this fact absolves Syria of their more egregious behavior, of course.
Re: Jews in Muhammed’s day - Just a tiny factoid - Quite a few Arab tribes and clans, especially in the northwest of the penninsula were, in fact, Jewish by religion. Many converted. Others resisted fiercely and were eventually overcome/absorbed. Otherwise C K Dexter Haven’s points are well-taken.
Re: Jordan - It is now ( and has been since the '70’s ) a majority Palestinian state. This is a result of the annexation of the West Bank in 1948. Even though that territory was subsequently lost in 1967, by then the demographic shift was already pronounced in the rest of Jordan. Unfortunately for the Hashemite’s, their base of power as a royal dynasty is the old tribal loyalty of the Bedouin Arab population, now a minority. Attempts to maintain royal authrity by concentrating military power in the hands of the Bedouins is eroding. This accounts for the at times seemingly bizarrely schizophrenic foreign policy of Jordan. There is a real need at times ( at least a perceived one ) to kow-tow to some of the more politically radical elements in Jordanian society.
Re: Assesing blame in the current mess in Israel - Plenty to go around, starting with the British who made contradictory promises to “both sides” in WW I. No one’s hands are clean IMO and that includes the Israeli’s. Not that anyone here has claimed otherwise.
Re: Solutions in Israel - I am pessimistic 
. IMHO there is no possibility of an economically viable ( and therefore politically stable ) Palestine sans Israel. The only solution I see ( “I” as in IMHO, I don’t claim this is fact - just an additional qualification to prevent me from being snarled at 
) is a cantonized, but tightly interlocked confederation of sorts including all of Israel/Palestine. But there is not the political will for this on either side at this point, in my estimation.
Anybody ever wonder what would have happened if the early Zionists had decided to settle for Western Argentina instead, as in one early proposal?
- Tamerlane
These are the kind of ignorant statements that can make up the minds of the uninformed public when they have nothing better or as simple to go on. I find what Sailor says above absolutely deplorable. Sailor also made these highly intellectual comments about the Palestinians:
(from http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41523)
Sailor, if you have nothing better to contribute, please cease your blabbing before you bring pile bias on the people who read this thread to learn rather than air illogical opinions.
On a similar topic, I detect a strong bias towards Israel on this board. It takes two to tango: the Israeli forces and government are as guilty as the Palestinian mobs. The notable difference is that the Israelis are organized while the Palestinians have no comparable organization or resources.
One of the finest and best-equipped military forces in the world against small bands of rock-throwing men and boys? That could be why even the USA, with its very powerful Jewish lobby and Jewish communications machinery, has condemned the excessive violence towards Palestinians in recent times. As Kofi Annan said of the situation, “you do not fight against public sentiment with tanks”.
There are some on this board who would depict the Palestinians as terrorists. Those people have a point, although it is a point far from simple since it is not always clear from what level terrorism is coming from, nor what it is (angry funeral mob or orchestrated revolt?). The charges or terrorism are just as easily applied to Israel, which has destroyed housing, planted bombs, launched attacks against civilians, and carried out assassinations against Palestinians. The essential difference between the two strategies is organization. I have no more sympathy for the Israeli powers than I have for the Palestinian mobs–in fact, I find the actions of Israeli forces to be inexcusable, because they are ordered by people who would supposedly know better.
I think Dex’s summary, although detailed and informative, is somewhat biased towards Israel. That is not to say it’s an incorrect account, but on reading it I feel as if a portion of half the story–the Palestinian side–is missing. It is extremely rare to hear all sides of such an issue, which is why blanket statements such as “Palestinians are losers” are not only foolish, but irresponsible and damaging as well.
Abe