pro-Palestinian thread

I decided to re-visit this “thread-that-will-not-die”. I suppose I can feel a little flattered that I finally succeeded in starting a thread that has become one of the most popular threads on these boards. I guess this thread has also kept going due to the persistence and passion of Olentzero and his equally persistent opponents. So I guess I abandoned the fight too early.

Many posters have referred to a supposedly wonderful offer made by Prime Minister Barak to the Palestinians last year, which Chairman Arafat then supposedly turned down flat, and their reasoning is, “the Palestinians had their chance, and they blew it, boo-hoo for them.” Well, it’s not that simple. There is some doubt as to whether Barak made a real offer, and whether he was sincere. There is an article from the Guardian, Britain’s left-leaning newspaper, which deconstructs the myth of “the Palestinians’ lost opportunity”, and it can be accessed at the Peace Now website:
http://www.peacenow.org/nia/news/malleyagha.html

I also believe that any offer that left the settlements in place would be doomed to failure. No responsible Palestinian leader could ever agree to institutionalize the land thefts and lock in the settlements forever. The settlements, along with unequal allocation of resources and economic underdevelopment, are the crux of the problem, even more so than the fate of Jerusalem, and they are the real reason for the near-total disenchantment with the Oslo accords.

Of course no one can deny or defend that list, but I have my own list which is equally undeniable and indefensible: Car-bomb attacks on the West-Bank mayors. The attempt to blow up the Dome of the Rock. Constant incursions into homes and unwarranted killings and woundings by settlers and occupation troops. Land seizures and dispossessions. “Collective punishment.” Deportations. Killings of youths for throwing stones during the first Intifada. The killing of an Israeli Arab youth as he demonstrated for peace last year. Arbitrary detention, legalized torture and deaths in custody. The Temple of Abraham massacre. Targeted assassinations, without the benefit of a trial and with “collateral damage.” And little Mohammed, shot last year while in his father’s arms.

Add to that the fact that roughly five times as many Palestinians as Israelis have died in the current conflict. I do not think all of the dead were “known terrorists,” especially since they were never given the chance to defend themselves in court. The IDF even went so far as to admit that one of its recent victims could not be tied directly to any attack, but that he “would have” planned and carried out terrorist attacks. Little Mohammed definitely was no terrorist, unless you want to take the disgusting position that he “would have” become a terrorist, “nits become lice,” and so it was better that he die now instead of five or ten years later.

And I don’t buy for a minute the explanation about “accidentally” killing non-combatants. If you kill some innocents, apologize and express regret, but then continue to carry out the same operation which continues to kill more innocents, then that is the same as doing it on purpose, and that is terrorism and murder.

Let’s not even delve into the bombing of the King David Hotel and the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, carried out by two men who later became Prime Ministers of Israel, since that’s ancient history. But let’s mention it in passing, and add it to the list.

I reiterate: Israel is NOT a democracy, and it is far from being a uniquely enlightened state in the region. And let’s have no more nonsense about how the Jews’ ethnic solidarity is so much better than Arab solidarity. Even the “rich Arab states” never had any obligation to take in an entire population from another region. A true democracy allows equal civil rights and equal citizenship opportunities for ALL subject peoples within its borders, without regard for ethnicity or religion.

Even Iran, where fundamentalism is dominant and free speech can be dangerous, is definitely competitive with Israel in the “democracy” arena. At least Iran allows a greater proportion of its people to vote and hold office (including women), and reformists and moderates are getting elected.

Alessan did say something in defense of Israeli troops, but she was talking about the ancient atrocity of Dir Yassein, NOT the modern-day occupation troops. And it is interesting that nobody has even tried to defend the settlers. The settlers, extremist or not, violent or not, really need to leave, even if they have to be taken out in handcuffs. The day they leave is the day the conflict starts winding down, and any Israeli government that truly wants peace will recognize this. If Israelis want to live on Palestinian land, they should rent it from Palestinians or buy it from Palestinians at a fair price, not steal it.

I have been dismayed by some of the posts here which have sought to demonize the Palestinian people and culture as a whole. When you demonize an entire population, that is RACISM. (Please don’t split hairs about the definition of “race,” it’s the same principle.) Blaming Palestinians en masse for terrorism is ethically the same as blaming African-Americans en masse for street crime.

Palestinians and Arabs in general are, on the whole, kind, hospitable, generous and friendly, but these humane qualities can disappear under extreme pressure, just as for any other people. The Israelis (and white South Africans!) I have met were the same. I think people are basically good, but it is so sad that admirable human traits can be crushed under the burden of “tradition” and “patriotism.” Jews and Arabs have more in common than they think, but they may never find this out.

About the “celebrating Palestinians”: one factor no one has mentioned yet is that of DISTANCE.

If my SO died, I would be destroyed and wracked with grief. If the SO of a friend died, I would merely feel sad for them. If I hear in the news about someone’s SO dying on the other side of the country, I click my tongue and say, “Gosh, what a shame.”

Similarly, if I lived in New York the emotional impact of what happened would have changed my life. But since I live three thousand miles away, it’s still a shock to me but the impact isn’t as great unless I talk to my Mom (a New Yorker) and hear about all the sad scenes she has witnessed. A little farther away from the US, people may go, “Tsk tsk, what a pity.” And when it comes to other side of the world– especially in a region where many people blame the US for their suffering–a common response may be, “Hey, it wasn’t us who died this time!”

When Americans hear about suffering on the other side of the world, many of them are cavalier about it, or may even joke about it in bars, even liberals. Does this make them monsters? No. If the location of the suffering is an “enemy country” where (for example) a nuclear power plant exploded, comedians may say something like, “A-HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA, BETTER THEM THAN US!” and be applauded wildly. Does this make the comedians and their audiences monsters? No. The suffering seems far enough away to laugh or gloat about it.

Come on now, Americans are not exactly blameless when it comes to celebrating foreign deaths!

The CIA Factbook would beg to differ:

Who takes the CIA’s word for anything? They didn’t know or didn’t care that Chile in 1973 was a democracy, and they went ahead and replaced the democraticall-elected government with a dictatorship that killed 30,000 people. The CIA was also convinced that Nicaragua in the 1980’s was a dicatorship, but I beg to differ, as I witnessed two Sandinista-era election campaigns (1984 and 1989), saw plenty of free speech and lively campaigning by the opposition, and witnessed people voting freely in '84.

Please find a better source than the CIA. Or better yet, examine the situation and come to your own conclusions rather than relying on a factbook.

Nah, we wouldn’t want to use facts on the SDMB. :rolleyes:

That said, what are your “conclusions” about how Israel is not a democracy?

tclouie,

I appreciated your “i’m back” message. You make many excellent points.

Olentzero: point blank: Is Israel an illegal state or not? And if it’s not, what does that statement about the occupation beginning in 1948 mean?
For once, answer the question.

There is a difference, with almost all of your examples. They are not “atrocities.” The ones committed by civilians (plot to destroy the Dome of the Rock, Temple of Abraham, settler attacks) are pursued and prosecuted by Israeli police because there is a rule of law in Israel, and a functioning judiciary.

The justification behind most of the rest are that they are military action. These moves are defensive in nature. Israel is fighting a war in the territories, in case you haven’t noticed. While that war may not fit some of our clean, 19th century definitions of war, it certainly is a war. Israel has gone out of their way again and again to minimize civilian deaths. Most “collateral damage” is indeed apologized for. Perhaps there would be fewer Palestinian deaths if the Tanzim militia did not insist on using schoolchildren throwing stones as human shields from which to fire at the Israelis with real, live ammunition. It is war.

You know, things work differently in war. Each soldier in the war is not usually tried before he is killed on the battlefield. Israel plays by different rules, because they have to. I am not saying that all of their actions are peachy clean morally pure. I am just saying that they do what they have to do in order to protect their populace. In war, civilians will get killed. In war, you resort to assasination in order to prevent future attacks. In war, bulldozing farms and apartment buildings serving as sniper hideouts is a justified thing to do. I daresay that if your opponent is not motivated by death, like the suicide bombers, sometimes you might need to resort to more unconventional means in order to get information. I don’t like it, it turns my stomach, but it is war. That is why the same policies are carried out from day to day. They have been working – more bombers caught, more botched bombings, more work accidents.

The territories are not within the borders of Israel. All Israeli citizens – white, brown, black, Muslim Arab, Jew, Christian, women, men – are allowed to vote in free elections. Show me another country in the region where that is the case. And, to add to this, citizenship was offered to the people of the territories after occupation in 1967. They never accepted. Calling Iran a comparable democracy is a farce. There is no significant opposition in Iran! It is a single party state! Every leader has to have approval from the Ayatollah and ruling religious leaders! Can women vote?

About settlements –
You know, I don’t like the idea of settlements. If I had my way, Israel would withdraw the settlements tomorrow, and maintain 1967 borders. The problem is that separation, I have come to believe, would accomplish very little. There still wouldn’t be peace. There still wouldn’t be a cease fire. There still wouldn’t be a cessation of terror. Palestinians, in general, would still hate Israelis.

Both sides have blood on their hands. That is what happens in war. That is what happens in hatred. I see one constant difference – the Israeli government has never had a policy of targetting non-involved civilians. When fringe groups in Israel have killed Palestinians, the rule of law and Israeli judiciary has been able to contain them. Extremist groups don’t go far because of a representative government with personal freedoms. The PLO had a policy of terrorism. IMHO Arafat has found it hard to give that up – his words of condemnation for suicide bombings are never broadcast in the territories, only the foreign press. No rule of law or judiciary has even tried in the past year to round up terrorists or suspected militants. His state controlled clerics praise suicide bombings and regularly spout off anti-Jewish calls to action. His state TV regularly broadcasts programs to glorify martyrdom. His education system crams anti-Israel propoganda down the throats of children from a very early age. The schools have been closed so that children can go out on the streets to hurl stones at the Israelis, and get mowed down when the Tanzim come out and start firing from behind them.

We can go round and round and round for the rest of our lives. Nothing will come of it. As an American who is quite pro-Israeli, I have always tried to see the good in the Palestinian people. As a liberal, I have always believed in their right for self-determination and self-governance. I have always supported an independent Palestine in the West Bank.

The fact, though, is that these cannot come at the cost of the self-governance and self-determination of the 4 million Jews (and Christians, Muslims, and Druse who are citizens). Palestine should exist, but not at the expense of Israel. I would be a lot happier if you (and Olentzero) were able to concede that point.

I have no problem conceding that point. Israel has a right to exist. Palestine has a right to exist. Every person in those countries has a right to life, liberty, property and self-determination.

Therefore, let’s get the settlers out and give back the stolen land!

I don’t think sheer, unreasoning hatred is as powerful as you make out. Someone else in this thread (ironically, arguing on the pro-Israeli side) pointed out that in 1994 Palestinians were optimistic about the peace process and there was a lot less support for terror tactics. Then, as the Oslo accords were revealed to be a smokescreen for underdevelopment, economic isolation, even less freedom of movement and even more settlements, people started becoming more tolerant of violence. And even more tolerant now, with daily war and killings. To me, this proves that the root causes of the violence are economic, the same as here in the USA. If the US government would devote a mere fraction of its aid to Israel to the economic development of the Palestinian areas, a lot of the bitterness and hatred would evaporate as material prosperity increased.

You seem to keep yourself pretty well informed about Israel/Palestine, but I think you need to read up on Iran. Not only can women vote, but they can also run for office, and many of them are getting elected as reformists. The mullahs are having a conniption because they can’t control the tidal wave of democratic reform.

I don’t know if you are joking or not.

If you are not, then I am totally unaware of how to deal with your arguments.

Let us pretend, for a moment, that the two states decide on peace. After more than 50 years of sporadic warfare, this peace will be uneasy at first, but lets pretend it goes off without a hitch. Governments reform, democracy takes hold, immigration begins back into Israel. The Palesitinians have their land back, they work their way into politics, etc etc.

America’s civil rights movement was a long, difficult political battle. But then, they only wanted civil rights in their own country. The Israel/Palestine issue is that each side wants the same land. The easiest way to accomplish this, suprise!, is democracy, where both sides get a say. But the problem is greater because they don’t want to share. They want their own state on this disputed land.

Given the violent track record of these two people, it is not suprising at all that neither side will offer the whole nine yards during a peace process. Peace is a slow, arduous process on both sides. It takes work, and dedication. If the violent persons on either side put half the effort they put into fighting into democracy instead they’d all have ben living together in relative harmony for years now.

But, instead, we find Zionists and Palestinian states fighting each other over which flag to fly. :rolleyes: You’ll forgive me if I think they are both dumb-as-rocks. But America thought, “Hey, if we make Israel big and strong then the Palestinians, fearing military domination, won’t be such dicks and then we can get these two peoples to work something out.” Could we have made the Palestinians strong as well? Sure, in theory the choice was arbitrary. But there are, of course, many Jewish interests in America and the whole mess is explained best by politics anyway, so in the juggling act America supported Israel.

America doesn’t always support peace. How could it? We are a military superpower, and once parties themselves have resolved to use force to decide, and we see we could serve our interests as well by choosing a side, well duh any rational government is going to take sides and support a team if it has the means to do so, or stands to significantly gain from doing so.

It was already a fight, all we did was pick a side. If we had no real interests there we would have probably let one side kill the other.

What are you guys missing in all of this? Seriously. At what arbitrary point are we cutting off history, which facts are we ignoring, so that we can lay blame in this?

Settle all disputes with a religiously-neutral panel, maybe? One high-ranking moderate Jewish rabbi, one high-ranking moderate Muslem priest, and three avowed atheists. Either that, or turn the whole place over to Disneyland. Everyone pays to get in, they can stay if they behave, and security give you the boot if you cause trouble.

It’s like disciplining children; when two kids are squabbling over the same toy, you separate the kids and take the toy away. Problem is finding a grown-up in a land of infants…

[gasp]
WHAT?! You mean you want people to try and think this out?

I don’t think anyone could be said to be “impartial” at this point, and neither side will much like submitting their religious authority to an atheistic panel.

I don’t advocate genocide, but short of another Martin Luther King Jr or another Ghandi there’s gonna be a whole lotta bomb dropeed before we see the end of this.