Heh. I must say it’s the first time someone became angry enough to swear at me, while remaining PC.
:dubious: Really? Or are you just trying to make a point?
Because, if you really don’t see anything but the Big Stick, you may want to consider changing your news source.
Have you not heard about (just in the last couple of decades) the Oslo Accord? The peace summit of Camp David in 2000? Of the 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace? Of the withdrawal from the Gaza strip? Of the (now paused) plan of (partial) withdrawal from the west bank? Of the 2001 Tabba summit?
No hard feelings.
The situation (like always) was a tad more complicated. Some early Zionists were religiously-motivated. OTOH, some were devoted atheists. But yes, the Zionist movement, as a rule, was secular.
[hijack]
The Irgun’s (or more fully: Irgun Zvai Leumi = National Military Organization, aka Etzel) combatants were assimilated into the IDF. The political leadership evolved into the current-day Likud party.
While we’re hijacking, you may be interested in reading about Altalena. Even without taking sides in the matter (that to certain degree is still an open wound in Israel), you should note the length, (or even brutality) the young state went to in order to ensure democracy and unified army.
This is part of the reason I had always had problems accepting the Palestinian claims (in the pre-hamas times) of not being able to control the para-military groups.
[/hijack]
Err… Does it mean you’re one of those who consider the Iraq war (for example) to be an proxy war for Israel?
I wouldn’t say more wretched, but certainly more complicated.
And I wouldn’t take any news source at face value. Journalists are human, prone to human faults.
Sidenote: would you accept, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a declaration by AQ that will no longer practice terrorism?
As for Israel: WE have tried peace, war, and unilateral step. We seem to running out of ideas. I would really be interested in listening to your suggestions of new methods.
I can’t speak for the “common Israeli”, but I will give you my impression as well as my own views and doubts.
First, from my experience, periods of (relative) peace tend to push the public opinion toward the left-wing. For example, the mid-90’s, after the Oslo accords, saw major drive toward concessions agreement.
OTOH, the latest war saw a radical drive toward the right and “peace may not be possible, lets prepare for war” view.
I also believe that within a few weeks / months things will be back to what they were (except for those directly influenced or hurt).
Having said that, allow me to share my current contemplations with you.
For years, I have supported the “land for peace” formula, as I believe that, while not perfect, it’s the best way to allow both sides to live together.
One formula I refuse to support is “land for war”, or “land as a springboard to more land”.
I have said it before, but I’ll repeat it.
[ul]After 18 years of occupation, public opinion finally made Israel withdraw from S. Lebanon. Result: Hezbollah immediately started fortification of the evacuated area. Numerous shelling of Israel from that area. Finally, breaching into Israeli territory, abducting two Israeli soldiers.
[/ul]
[ul]Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip. Result: Hammas immediately started fortification of the evacuated area. Palestinians elected a Hammas-led government. Continuous shelling of Israel from that area. Finally, breaching into Israeli territory, abducting an Israeli soldier.
[/ul]
[ul]Israel is still occupying the west bank. Result: In the last conflict, Israel fought in two fronts: Gaza and Lebanon. The west bank was quite.[/ul]
Now, I know it’s not a rule. The peace with Egypt is still holding.
But it does make someone like me rethink his position. I’m yet to re-decide on the issue…
Except, the special status for Jews in Israel’s immigration law is hardly an example of “just happening” to favor a particular group. Israel’s very existence is predicated on its being a Jewish homeland. The principle of religious discrimination is built right into its founding. You are right that other countries also practice various forms of discrimination in their immigration laws, but that doesn’t invalidate the question of whether such discrimination can coexist with true democracy.
(And by the way, if you really don’t want to continue talking about this subject in this thread, feel free to stop talking about it and I’ll be happy to do the same. But if you keep responding to my remarks on it, I’ll probably keep responding to your responses.)
This explains our disagreement, then. If you get to pick and choose the definition of “occupied territories”, then yes, you can argue that settlements in the “occupied territories” haven’t been expanding. But my definition of “occupied territories” (and, as you note, the definition accepted by the US, the Palestinians, and most of the rest of the world) isn’t identical to yours.
Again, this strikes me as an unacceptable double standard. When Palestinian leaders make belligerent statements about Israel “in a certain context” (I presume that’s a euphemism for “when addressing their radical hard-liners”?), we rightly criticize them and demand that the positions they express should be abandoned. But when the Israeli leader expresses support “in a certain context” for settlement expansions that are widely regarded as illegal land-grabbing, we’re just expected to wink and take it with a grain of salt instead of demanding its retraction. I don’t think that’s fair.
You make it sound as though Israel had had no security problems in southern Lebanon during the occupation. But quite the contrary is true, AFAICT: it was mounting conflicts and casualties in Lebanon in the last years of the Israeli occupation that helped swing Israeli public opinion to favor the withdrawal in 2000.
I think there’s no denying that Israel can expect security problems with some of its neighbors for a long time to come, even if it relinquishes claims to all territories outside its pre-1967 borders, which is what I think it should do (with or without a “security fence” on those borders). And I would fully support US aid and international peacekeeping efforts to protect Israel within its proper borders, and to chastise and punish aggressors who try to attack it. But I am unconvinced that Israel is actually increasing its ultimate security by doggedly clinging to lands and resources that don’t belong to it, nor that the advantages it gains thereby are worth the cost.
Is there so much as a pretence that the West Bank settlements are occurring for security purposes? I’ve seen nothing to suggest that even within Israel there is no serious suggestion that the policy is anything other than a land-grab.
I think we have to distinguish between “occupation” and “settlements”. Many Israelis and Israel supporters claim that Israel needs to retain military/political control of the occupied territories (and/or southern Lebanon, and/or the Golan Heights, and I’m old enough to remember the same argument being applied to the Sinai Peninsula too) for security purposes. As I said in my previous post, while I recognize the validity of the security concerns, I don’t think that Israeli occupation of territories outside Israel proper really does much to resolve them in the long run. Causes more problems than it solves, and all that.
And yeah, the presence of Israeli citizens as permanent residents in the occupied territories, who then have to be guarded and supported at huge taxpayer expense, seems absurd from a security point of view. The only argument in favor of settlements AFAICT is that they serve as so-called “facts on the ground” to justify continuing the military occupation for their protection, and the continuing occupation thus provides opportunity for expanding settlements, and the increased settler population makes it necessary to continue the occupation, and so on in a triumph of circular reasoning.
Can we agree then, on saying that some settlements were expanding, rather than simply “settlements were expanding”? (I think the “some” is actually “a few” or even “a couple” but I won’t argue this point).
Look, I’m not going to defend Sharon. In my view, he was (is? How do you refer to a person in a comma?) a liar. He may have done something that was mostly right, but for a bunch of wrong reasons. And I think he was not being truthful here as well.
Two notes, however, I think are due:
We really should differentiate between wrong statements. A statement like “we will continue to expand the settlements” (Sharon) is not the same as “we will make them drink the seawater of Gaza” (Arafat).
Even in this very link, Sharon was referring to Maaleh Adumim, which we agreed (I hope) is part of the “some settlements” that were expanded.
Sure Israel had security problems in S. Lebanon. But Hezbollah’s stated goal then was to drive out the Israelis. Only, once Israel left, the attacks continued, and even intensified.
So, you’re saying Israel should withdraw to the '67 border, and hope that “international peacekeepers” will protect it? All I have to say in response is: HA!
I mean, Israel has such a good track record WRT peacekeepers. Like the ones in Sinai prior to the Yom Kippur war. Like the UNIFIL just now. C’mon.
I can see it now:
Israel withdraws, followed by Palestinian shelling.
The UN condemns Pal.
Pal continues shelling.
UN condemns Pal severely
Pal continues shelling.
UN issues a warning to Pal to stop within a week or else
Pal continues shelling.
UN extends the ultimatum for another week
Pal continues shelling.
UN condemns Pal really severely
Pal continues shelling.
Israel retaliates
International community blames Israel for being aggressive
I agree that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, and a security hazard. But I also think the right way to handle it is via negotiations. I also think that the very first step should be mutual recognition of the right of Israel and Palestine to co-exist. Including abandoning terrorism as a formal policy, and actual change of the PLO / PA charters.
Certainly. In fact, that’s basically what I said in my original comment on this subject in my first post in this thread:
I don’t believe I ever claimed that there was a net increase in the number of settlers in the occupied territories overall under Sharon, and if I gave that impression then I apologize and retract it.
You mean, do I think Israel should give up its right to defend itself with its own army and resources, in addition to getting military support from the US and from the international community? Certainly not. But yes, I think Israel should withdraw to the '67 border.
I agree, from a realpolitik standpoint: as things currently are, possession of the occupied territories is a strong card in Israel’s hand, and it would be smart to use it to bargain with rather than just unilaterally surrendering it immediately. But as Israel has no genuine claim of ownership to those lands, unilateral withdrawal would be preferable to indefinite retention.
I agree that that’s a very important step, but I’m concerned that Israel may deliberately use it as a deal-breaker to avoid relinquishing territory or permitting the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. I would much rather see Israel make a serious deal on a fair two-state solution, even with a Palestinian leadership that’s still nominally refusing to recognize Israel, than have the current impasse continue indefinitely.
Once Israel can regain the undisputed moral high ground by honoring the rights of the Palestinians (and IMO that would include a limited “right of return” provision that would balance Palestinian property rights with Israeli demographic concerns, plus monetary compensation (with US help) for Palestinians excluded from returning), then there will be a lot more pressure from the international community to accord proper recognition to Israel. Paranoid fantasies of universal crypto-antisemitism aside, ISTM that most of the non-Arab world genuinely wants to support Israel’s existence and democratic prosperity and stability, but is getting increasingly exasperated with the continued perception that Israel is exploiting its privileged position to do the dirty on the dispossessed.
I have seen no indications that this last part is even remotely true; certainly, recent Israeli gestures, such as leaving the Gaza strip and participating in various peace process proposals, have done basically nothing in terms of obtaining goodwill from the “non-Arab world”. Nor does one have to resort to “paranoid fantasies of crypto-antisemitism” to explain the rather one-sided treatment Israel uniquely receives, particularly from the left of the political spectrum.
Personally, I explain the prevelance of unreasonable anti-Israeli animus in the West (as opposed to the cruder anti-Jewish animus prevelent in much of the rest of the world) on the basis that, for a variety of reasons, only some of which have to do with (much exaggerated) Israeli bad behaviour, attitude towards Israel has become a sort of leftist shibboleth. In much the same way as “colonialism” is considered by many a historic evil, such that it is now very difficult to actually rationally determine whether Europe’s colonial legacy had any good aspects to it for those colonized, the notion of Israel’s “use of its privileged position to do the dirty to the dispossessed” is simply an unquestioned item of secular faith for some. In fact, much of the historic attidute towards colonialism - guilt over exploitation by Euros - is directly transferred onto Israel, by those same Euros; with added complexities and poisions concerning guilt over the holocaust (and resentment over that guilt).
Never mind that there might be other sides to the coin. Forget the fate of the Shefardim, those equally dispossessed people of the middle east (compensation for whom never appears to be mentioned at all!). Never mind that much of Israeli “bad behaviour” is in reaction to legitimate fears caused by living among millions of people who unreasonably hate them, want them dead, and repeatedly act on this. No, Israel is supposed to commit some sort of mass ritual seppuku by inviting these millions within its own border, as the price of “retaining the moral high ground”.
We agree in essence (I believe that the withdrawal should be to “almost” '67 border, with some modifications and land swaps (agreed via negotiations) that will take into account the changed state of the place since '67).
It may be worth mentioning that the Palestinians don’t have any genuine claim of ownership to those lands either. As the west bank belonged to Jordan, and the Gaza strip to Egypt, these are the only two states with any legal claim. Both not only did not place such claims, but even refused to take the land back.
How do you deal seriously with someone whose stated goal is your destruction, and who’s refusing to deal with you?
First, I doubt the legit position of Europe to determined moral stance of other states, given their past (and no, I don’t refer just to WWII and the holocaust).
Re the “right of return”: it depends what you define as “balance”. Israel, in the past, had already agreed to allow a limited ROR (mostly family reunions). If your idea of balance is allowing, say, 2M rather than 4M Palestinians the ROR, you won’t find any Israeli government even consider it any time in the foreseeable future.
Regarding monetary compensation: don’t forget the existence of equal or greater number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. One interesting suggestion I heard was to achieve world-wide agreement (Arab world included, off course) that the agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will also mark the end of hostilities between Israel and the Arab world as a whole. In this frame, there will be a “virtual exchange” of compensation to the refugee Jews and refugee Palestinians, each being “compensated” by their own side.
Finally, most of the world may support Israel in theory, but I don’t recall such a golden period before '67 (when, according to your view, Israel had an undisputed moral high ground).
Not true. UNSC 242, in specific, although the subject of much debate, specifically excluded words such as “the” and “all” from their first stated principle. There is no shortage of discussion on that topic, even including those who helped draft it, but it certainly seems that the stated concerns of security and the explicit solution of negotiation preclude any statements that Israel was simply supposed to give up all of the OT’s, with or without having its right to exist assured and its security protected.
It’s certainly possible to debate 242’s impact and intentions, but to simply state that Israel has ‘no genuine claim of ownership’ does a grave disservice to the complicated and intricate issues involved.
Puzzler: I’d have one nitpick about your formulation, which is that the OT’s also included the Golan, which is really a fascinating case.
For instance, Israel annexed it, and placed those civilians in the area under civil rather than martial law. The Golan, however, is largely ignored by many in the West who talk about Israel leaving the OT’s. It’s interesting as well, because Syria negotiated after the Yom Kippur war, and gave up its rights to the Golan. (Although they have since tried to get that turf back.)
Further, how Israel got to the point where it was forced via military necessity to capture the Golan is absolutely required reading for those who want to talk about Israel’s obligations to give up land without guarantees of security.
After sniping and various other attacks directed at it from the Golan, Israel went to the UN to request something be done. A weak resolution expressing mild regret was scuttled by the Russian faction on the SC.
Meanwhile, of Fatah, the Syrians said through their ambassador:
“It is not our duty to stop them, but to encourage and strengthen them,”
The UN, which of course had done nothing to stop the pattern of attacks upon Israel, then called for an immediate cease-fire. (sound familiar?)
For some, no doubt. But for many, it’s simply a natural reaction to those famous “facts on the ground”, which indisputably reveal Israel’s power over the Palestinians. Israel has secure possession of its own territory and a functioning state. The Palestinians have a conglomeration of “bantustans” under Israeli military control, and claims upon a bunch of land within Israel proper that is currently either administered or outright expropriated by the Israeli state. Israel has economic stability, government services, etc. etc.; the Palestinians have something like 50% unemployment and no access to jobs or services except through Israeli military checkpoints. Israeli settlers in the occupied territories fill their swimming pools while neighboring Palestinians haul buckets of water from wells. Lands and water sources outside Israel’s 1967 border are enfolded within Israel’s security wall, while Palestinian households on disputed lands are destroyed by Israeli bulldozers.
Now, no reasonable person could argue that the Palestinians are blameless in this conflict, or that a prosperous Palestinian state would magically spring up overnight if Israel would just abandon its occupation, or even that there would necessarily be a prosperous Palestine at present if Israel had never occupied the territories. But the fundamental facts of the economic and political relationship between the two peoples show that Israel is powerful and the Palestinians are suffering. It’s not realistic to expect people not to blame Israel for at least some of the problem here.
Um, what are you talking about? You seem to be referring to demands for an unrestricted Palestinian right of return to Israel, which is the only thing I can think of that would give “millions” of Palestinians license to settle “within its own border”. However, I have not seen anybody here arguing for any unrestricted Palestinian right of return. So your complaint that “Israel is supposed to commit some sort of mass ritual seppuku” is pointless victimization rhetoric, at least in the context of this thread.
Again, I think it’s fruitless for Israel or its supporters to expect to deflect attention from what are widely perceived as its failures and injustices by changing the subject to the injustices that Jews and Israel have themselves (undeniably) suffered, or the dangers that they still (undeniably) face. Catastrophically, many Israelis and other Israel supporters seem to be persuading themselves that all criticism of Israel is just a reflection of “leftist” or antisemitic bias, so they don’t have to listen to it or take it seriously. No good can come of such an attitude, I fear.
Inasmuch as Israel has a claim to a Jewish state based on the original UN partition decision, the Palestinians have a claim to an Arab state based on the same decision. I do not see any way to deny the Palestinians a legitimate claim on Palestine without also denying the Israelis a legitimate claim on Israel. Unless we want to fall back on the claim of the “strong hand”—i.e., Israel owns its territory by virtue of having been able to take and defend it by force of arms. But in that case, why shouldn’t the Palestinians and/or other Arabs continue fighting to reclaim Israel’s territory by a “strong hand” of their own? Why should anyone support Israel’s theoretical “right to exist” beyond Israel’s immediate de facto ability to protect its own existence?
Either we’re using international legitimacy as the determining factor here, or we’re not. And if we are, then yes, the Palestinians have a genuine claim on the Palestinian state.
Negotiate. The “whose stated goal is your destruction” part is meaningless in practical terms. They can’t destroy you, and to refuse even to negotiate until they stop claiming that they want to just looks like making use of an ideological conflict to retain your practical advantage.
I agree. But even a much more limited ROR would be a valuable bargaining chip, and I think there are good points in your “mutual compensation” proposal too.
Right, but that was forty and fifty years ago when the whole post-colonial and post-WWII shakeup was still quite recent. I think most of the non-Arab world these days is perfectly willing to accept Israel as an established part of the political landscape.
I didn’t say that 242 mandated Israel’s unilaterally withdrawing from all of the OT’s (nor did I advocate it as a good idea in practical terms). What I said was that I considered that even such a unilateral withdrawal would be preferable to Israel’s trying to hang onto those lands indefinitely.
No, that wasn’t what I was commenting on or objecting to, and that’s not exactly what you said.
Your claim that
was what was at issue. As 242 directly gets at that dynamic, I assumed that was what you were using to base you contention of ‘no genuine claim’ upon.
You also set up a clear logical relationship, claiming that since Israel has ‘no genuine claim’, then unilateral withdrawal was best.
As your premise was shaky at best, your argument (on that point) became unsound.
It’s fine if we discuss variables, subjective values, and possible courses of action for the future. But your formulation was, at best, lacking nuance and context.
I would fear the same, if it were true that “many Israelis and other Israel supporters” think that “all” criticism is a manifestation of leftist or anti-Semitic bias.
The problem with this statement is that I can’t recall anyone here, on the Dope in general, or among commentators and editorialists in general saying that “all” or even most criticism of Israel stems from such bias.
I think it is incumbent upon you to demonsrate with cites that such statements are being made on a widespread basis, or to concede that it is a strawman that permits its users to ignore legitimate exposure of bias.
You’re right, “all” is an overstatement. Still, I worry that many pro-Israel advocates tend to be too quick to dismiss criticisms of Israel in this way.
(I exclude Puzzler from this category, as I think s/he’s shown in this thread a lot of willingness to discuss such criticisms on their merits. In fact, as mentioned previously, Israelis themselves often seem to be more willing to confront such criticisms than other Israel supporters. In my own, admittedly limited and anecdotal, experience the people who are most absolute on the “Israel can do no wrong” position are in fact the fundamentalist Christian Zionists.)
See, I thought you were against “victimization logic”. Yet here you are, caiming justification by relative deprivation.
What about the fact that other states in the region, having little to do with Israel, also suffer from a lesser standard of living? Should this, too, be a justification for endless hatred?
What does this portend for the future? Actual “facts on the ground” indicate that, if control is handed over to the Palistinians (as was actually done in Gaza), conditions and standards of living there have not improved. Does this mean that if Israel acquiesces in each and every demand, it can look forward to increased hatred and attacks on it - and to the rest of the world’s lack of sympathy, based on or justified by Israel’s ‘culpable’ relative success?
That being said, I would definitely support getting rid of the settlements on the West Bank. But not because it will change the situation much.
It is one of the standard Palistinian demands. Why is it unreasonable to reference it? You yourself seem to acknowledge that “national seppuku” would result, where you approve of some middle ground (which would presumably magically satisfy the Palistinians without such risk).
Even less good can come of having such a bias, or refusing to acknowledge that it may even exist. Nor do I see many here unwilling to address, point by point, [iactual wrongs committed by Israel. The classification of relative deprivation (“Israelis have economic stability”) as a “wrong”, as in your reply, is certainly enlightening, though.
That being said, it is not a “deflection of attention” to remark that if compensation is demanded to redress past dispossessions, it should not be a one-way street. You are, after all, asking the very same people who were dispossessed themselves by Arabs - the Shephardim - to compensate, either directly or through their taxes, Arabs who have been dispossessed. Their numbers are, in point of fact, roughly equal. Why not have each “side” compensate those living among them? Thus, the Shephardim can be compensated by the Israelis and the Palistinians by their brother Arabs.
You know as well as I why this would not fly. Fact is, the Shephardim are not living in miserable refugee camps, inciting pity and sympathy, and wasting generations in fruitless waiting for compensation, held in place by tyranical leaders and uncaring neighbours as pawns to attract world condemnation of the hated enemy. So their situations are not parallel. And the leaders of the Arab world has zero interest in ending the current situation, as Palistinian misery suits them fine - after all, it evidently works as a weapon.
Personally, I have real doubts that “compensation” would even work in eleviating that misery. There is more to being prosperous than simply getting money. Even if Israel was to hand over all the land demanded of it, and wads of cash, I honestly don’t see anything changing so long as the Palistinian government is run in its current manner.
Well, that can be a reasonable concern. But it is like tho old story of “the boy who cried wolf” - too much unreasonable* criticism, based on bias, can have the effect on the target of making it deaf to reasonable criticism.
The solution, I would think, is obvious - do not indulge in hyperbole oneself, and do not let it pass in others.
