If you re-read my post, I never made this assumption. On the contrary, like you, I doubt it would put an end to attacks on civilians. I draw the line on “Occupied” exactly along the lines laid out in the 1948 UN resolution which Israel accepted.
Agreed…without a time machine, who’s to say that by its presence in the OT, Israel hasn’t thwarted something infinitely more horrific than the attacks to date.
Others have mentioned how a non-violent approach would work to the Palestinians benefit. I agree, and was basically suggesting that Israel do the same, but take the initiative.
Bizzwire, believe me, I have thought long and hard about both sides of this. And I have tried to avoid taking either side. But to reverse the debate and ask, “why doesn’t Irael surrender” requires then making an assumption about the desires of the Palestinians.
There is no way I could speak for all Palestinians, but with that said I’ve spent most of the night reading through Hamas’ website with a certain amount of disgust.
So my conclusion is that for Israel to surrender would at the extreme involve the systematic slaughter of every non-Muslim within the original borders of Islam. Granted, that’s the extreme, but the next option is to pack up every Jewish person between Jordan and Egypt and move them as far from Palestine as possible. In short, Hamas et al. has set their terms for the destruction of Israel and Israelis. For them, peace involves total destruction.
So to answer your question, for Israel to surrender would cause more pain and suffering, less freedome for their people, and generally for things to get worse.
I agree fully with you that the settlements need to come down, although I doubt it would have any consequence.
Since a few people have mentioned passive resistance, I thought I’d share a bit of irony.
In the novel Exodus but Leon Uris, there is a scene about the Jewish refugees on a boat trying to get to a port, I believe on the Mediteranian. The Jewish refugees had been driven from their homes all over the ME/NA and were beginning to flock towards Israel.
In this scene the nation they are trying to dock and refuses them access and orders the ship to turn around. In defiance, the Jewish refugees threaten suicide. They said that one person, every 20min, will walk to the bow and commit suicide until the allow access.
I realize the bit is fiction, but it presents and interesting comparison between Jewish resistance, and Palestinian resistance.
Imagine the global reaction if Palestine threatened something similar: Instead of suicide bombings, threaten to have one militant after another walk out into a field and die…
On reflection, I agree I mis-underheard you and what you were saying. I stand corrected and you have my apologies.
And I would draw the line there as well…however, I’m well aware that some want to draw the line somewhere in the sea. Also, there is the Israeli case that some of that land was won through force of arms on the battle field…and some of it never belonged to ‘palestine’ anyway, belonging to various other militant powers in the region at one time or another. So, I doubt you’d ever get a consensus on what or where exactly the ‘occupied territories’ is, or where the line is. But as you said, even if Israels DID conceed to pulling back everything to the lines drawn up by the UN in '48, I doubt this would stop the terror attacks anyway. And there would be even less point to them to boot.
Honestly, I don’t think Israel can take the initiative. For one thing, they are too close to the problem…and way too emotionally involved. The other thing is, they are a democracy. As long as they continue to be attacked, it would be political suicide for their government to conceed too much.
Also, the OT are a hot button topic, politically speaking. Those folks vote too, and its a real issue in Israel. If there is ever going to be concessions, I think they will have to start with the Palestinians putting some kind of total cease fire in place unilaterally, at least with reguards to attacks into Israel targetting civilians. To completely stop the suicide attacks into Israel, and to curtail (as much as possible) the structured violence in Palestine against the Israeli’s. And I think this is a conclusion they will eventually come too…after a hell of a lot more deaths and needless violence.
This was the model as near as I remember it in Ireland anyway…with concessions coming from the militant factions first.
Sure, it would make sense to observers in the West if the militants were to put down their weapons and try to negotiate peacefully with Israel, but the Arab’s battle is not about reaching a compromise for lost land. It never was. The PLO Charter is essentially the same now as it was when written in 1968. It calls for liberation through armed struggle of **all ** the land currently occupied by the State of Israel. cite
Stolen? From whom? Who exactly does the land belong to, and why?
The Israelites existed and occupied that land for two and a half thousand years before Muhammed was born.
The creation of Israel was not a UN mandate. The simple fact that a mandate was written does not imply that it was the mandate itself which caused the nation to exist. The creation of the current nation of Israel was through a popular uprising, conducted by the inhabitants of the land.
Could it be that the idea of the Palestinian “armed resistance” is less a political struggle for freedom than a convenient excuse to wage a religious war? And, if so, what exactly are the aims of this war? It seems obvious to many of us, except for people who base their opinions on agendas, and not logic or facts.
Fact: the stated aims of the Palestinian resistance groups (at least all the ones that I know of) are genocide, including the complete destruction of all jews in the Middle East. In every circumstance there is a call to religious, armed struggle. It has been said many times before, but I urge you not to simply ignore this fact.
Fact: Israel has never stated a similar intention against the Palestinians.
Fact: In every instance where a cease fire or cessation of hostilities has been agreed upon between Israel and the palestinians, the palestinians have broken it. Compare this with the fact that Israel has NOT broken a cease fire agreement with the Palestinians.
It is for this reason that we must put palestinians in the role of the aggressor. Any other conclusions are, as I said, driven by a personal or cultural agenda, because they must ignore these facts.
If Palestine is ever recognized as a sovereign state, it will be for the first time. How then can you justify the statement that it is “their land”? By what right can palestinians lay claim to any part of Israel?
But even more importantly, how exactly can you justify the type of war that has been declared on Israel?
EsotericEnigma. It is probably a waste of my time but I cannot let you pass off what you state as facts without comment.
Tell me why, even if we accept such a simplification of history, why those two and a half thousand years should take precidence? And don’t tell me becasue the Jews are their G%^'s chosen people…
Some of the inhabitants, against a majority of the inhabitants who were in more immediate occupation of those same lands. Helped by lots of recent arrivals who had little or no connection with the lands other than a shared religion with some of the inhabitants. I agree the UN mandate did not create Israel only internationally legitimalised it. The creation of the current nation of Israel was through an unilateral act of declaring a state by some of it’s inhabitants - and not universally popular with the general population shall we say.
It could be. But it is not. Religion is a weapon, the aims are different. Facts - is that the same as 'realities on the ground"?
You are incorrect. The right of Israel to peaceful co-existance has been long and repeated admitted by most of the Palestinian resistance groups. For instance,
If you wish to cite the pre-existing PLO Charter and point out it has never been formally amended to reflect this exchange you may. I agree it would help build bridges but it’s absence does not change the official acceptance above which you, as well as many apologist for Israel, continue to deny
Many Israelis, including current government ministers, and radical Zionist organisations have and continue to express such views, just as some radical Palestinian organisations hold opposite views. There is no moral high ground.
Rubbish. Can you support any of your supposed facts with evidence? Both sides (that should mean every “side” the problem being far more complext that just two sides) have repeated breached their undertakings. There is no moral high ground.
I am not claiming Palestinians have not similarly breached their undertakings, you are taking that foolish position vis a vis the Israelis. Please refute every reference above if you can.
No. There are no aggressors, no high ground - both sides will eventually have to learn to co-exist on a basis which each can accept sharing the lands, including Jerusalem of course. No surrenders, no victors.
Another Zionist red herring. I deny you premise but say we allow it to pass for a moment. So Israeli can be formed by an act of popular uprising can it, without needing any international legitimacy? Why do not the same rights apply to the Palestinians?
I don’t think either party can justify their behavoirs or the type of conflict they have and continue to wage.
I wasn’t really thinking along the lines of Israel “surrendering.” I was expanding on your thesis that the current situation really benefits neither side.
um, I think you were responding to a comment by emack, but I’ll give it a stab. I was listening to NPR yesterday, and they were discussing Sharon’s recent drubbing by his own party over his plan to pull out of Gaza. According to the report, something like 65% of Israelis favor such a plan, so where exactly is the democratic process here?
Israelis and Palestinians are locked in “I won’t bow first”. Surrendering is showing weakness and being humiliated.
I think everyone here agrees that Palestinians would be better off with peace... but peace at what price ? Simply surrendering and quitting will mean Israel will play nice ? The way Bush is a Sharon plaything... I doubt they feel they will get better treatment if they play nice.
Also is the Intifadah really a failure ? If they had bowed out a decade ago they might never had had a chance at having their own state (whatever good that might be...) or of stopping more of the jewish settlements from popping up.
Then there is the Hamas leadership. What do they gain from peace ? Now they might be living dangerously... but they hold power. They call the shots. Democracy and peace means they lose power... so there is this ever need for confrontation. (Yep just like Bush need terrorism "to be" relevant.) The common guy wants peace... but his leaders tell him its a dishonorable peace... or other BS.
Its a matter of options. If given a credible option they would chose peace... but Sharon and Bush are warmongers of the worst kind. Hamas leaders prefer to become martyrs and fight the good fight. Arafat is corrupt and doesn't want to lose hold of power... etc.. etc... Surrendering is not an option in these conditions.
Two conflicting human hardwired drives are at work here.
Logically it must be clear that the Palestinians would be much better off by accepting a partition plan that gave up some on Jersusalum, on the large border settlements, and on the Right to Return if they got back economic support, favorable shared revenues of tourist dollars, water rights and control, guarentees of coventures in development, and all of which it really takes make a country work. Clearly they could have bargained for much of that with Barak before he was a lame duck. Why didn’t they?
Some of course was Arafat’s defending his personal gangland feifdom, but it goes much deeper. They still wouldn’t think it was fair. Part of our human nature is to fight against what we think is unfair even if we know that we will end up with much less as a result. Some elements believe that Israel existing is unfair. That Israel thriving while they live in poverty is unfair. Being better off will not be enough as long as they percieve an injustice thrust upon them.
“Surrendering” to a better life with hope for jobs, education, peace, and political freedoms - is unthinkable because it would be surrendering to what they percieve as a basic injustice. That is why the hot button (and never achievable because they would destroy Israel) issues remain so hot, even though they have little to do with the viabilty of any future Palestinian state. And why the situation is so intractable.
The reason I made that point was more to undermine the palestinian claim that “they were there first.” I did not mean to imply that this should somehow take precidence when it comes to the question of who the land belongs to. The nation of Israel belongs to the Israelis because of the legitimacy of their government, and has nothing to do with religion at all.
If you are arguing that the creation of Israel was wrong, then I’m afraid we wont get any further in this discussion. It is a matter of opinion, though. My opinion is that Israelis have as much a right to the land as any of the other occupants, and they managed to create a government and live in stability, while the “majority of the inhabitants” (a term I find suspicious at best) did not.
Are you somehow denying that a religious war has been called upon and engaged against Israel? Next time you read the paper or listen to the news, or research the situation yourself, listen to what the palestinian militants say. You’ll hear the term “martyr” a lot, as if blowing up a busload of children is heroic. This war is founded in religion just as thoroughly as the crusades were.
It’s not limited to Palestinians, either. At various times within the past few decades Israel has been attacked by Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and Saudis.
I agree with those statements, except for the “long and repeatedly” part. The PLO publicly stated that Israel has a right to existence a total of one time, under pressure (mainly from the US) to reconcile differences and begin the peace process. Members of Arafat’s cabinet have since declared that the charter never changed, and in fact is still the guiding principle of their effort.
Admittedly, this may not be reflective of the PLO position, but only the thoughts of individuals. We then still have the problem of the legitimacy of the PLO, and exactly how castrated it is when compared to Hamas, which is growing in popularity as the PLO is failing. Unfortunately Hamas has even less desire to negotiate and follow peace plans than the PLO, and their stated goals have never changed.
The term “many Israelis” is misleading, because in reality the number is a tiny minority. Even the most radical Zionist organizations refuse to resort to the intentional killing of civilians to meet their goals.
In fact, if you visit the PLO official website, the first picture you will see is a group of Rabbis peacefully protesting the occupation. Maybe you are correct that there is no moral high ground, but the methods used by the two sides vary as widely as night and day.
I will stand corrected on this point, although the link you gave me was directed toward a website that, once again, was driven by an agenda. I have nothing similar to link to.
I am not a Zionist. I’m not even a jew. I oppose the occupation of Jerusalem and the defacto annexation of palestinian land with that stupid wall. The same rights DO apply to Palestinians, and in fact the international community is waiting breathlessly for this Palestinian state to emerge. It hasn’t, because at the moment the palestinians seem content to blow stuff up, following whichever radical leader is most destructive for them at the time.
The PLO had a decent shot at creating this nation of Palestine, but the palestinian people just wouldnt support or legitimize it. If Arafat told the Palestinians to lay down their weapons, how many would listen? But if Arafat told the palestinians to go forward in bold, glorious martyrdom, killing as many Israelis as possible, how many would listen then?
The problem at the root of this war is religious intolerance, not simple occupation or political rights.
Absolutely correct. Israel has taken extremely excessive unilateral actions that it has no justification for doing. The methods of both sides are despicable. What I was referring to was the goals and aims of the different sides.
For peace to exist in and around Israel, religion has to take a back seat for awhile. The goals of the palestinian people need to make a shift, from relgious to political.
After giving it some thought, I think that Israel may be in the best position to make the first move toward peace after all. It is an act of bad faith that they continue to occupy land that was not chartered for them, and this is the source of a lot of palestinian aggression. I don’t think it would solve the problem of religious zealots making martyrs out of themselves, but it would give them a lot less worth fighting and dying for.
Lets make a nice analogy… though a bit exagerrated. If kissing your bosses shoes publicly everyday meant gaining a 30% salary increase would you do it ? What is your “honor” and “dignity” worth ?
I guess they probably see it as DSeid said… as some sort of injustice…
They do prefer… but lately Sharon has proven they are willing to make targets of themselves… well at least Rantisi did… :dubious:
Okay everyone, settle down and let’s have a little lecture about Public Law 106 and Sovereignty.
In the beginning, Palestine belonged to Turkey. The British beat down the Turks, and got sovereignty over this little patch of land. What Sovereignty means is, they get to legislate over the land and administer it. Different from actually owning the land.
Now, the Arabs and the Jews in that patch of land were mightily pissed at one another, and started killing each other. The Queen wrung her hands and chucked Palestine to the UN to handle.
The UN General Assembly made a resolution Nov 1947 to seperate the land into 2, Jewish and Arabic controlled. The British would then transfer sovereignty to the new independant states. Israel agreed. Palestine did not.
And so, Israel was born.
Nothing to do with who was there first, or who owned the land - moral issues, perhaps, but well within the jurisdiction of the Britain and the UN to decide.
Sure you can argue that “well I was here first and I don’t want no steeking Joo” - but that’s not going to do you any good. You don’t have the right to decide who administers your land, any more than you can declare your backyard “Idunwannojooland”. Well, technically you can, but you better make sure you can defend Idunwannojooland against whoever is currently ruling your back yard (Currently, Bush).
I think there is a misunderstanding of the situation vis-a-vis Israel and the Palestinian terror groups.
If you are asserting that the terrorists should immediately cease using violence against Israeli civilians, because this would be infinitely better for all concerned than continuing, you would be correct. But this is exactly why they won’t do it.
The terror groups do not want things to be better for Israel - obviously - because they want to destroy her as a nation. But they also don’t want things to be better for the Palestinians. They want to goad Israel into making things worse for the Palestinians, so as to drum up support for jihad or the equivalent against the Jews in Israel. Any form of peaceful co-operation would badly undercut support for Hamas and the other terrorists.
What the terror groups want is for Israel to be provoked into committing acts that the terrorists can label as evil, and thus get more Palestinians to buy into their agenda of the destruction of Israel.
This is much of the motive of the incident you cited, the woman pretending to be pregnant and blowing up Israeli soldiers. The terrorists want Israel to regard pregnant Palestinian women with suspicion, in hopes that [list=A][li]Palestinians will be offended by the cruelty of the Israelis, harassing pregnant women, and some truly pregnant Palestinian, confused or frightened by the belief that Jews want to steal her baby and use the blood for Passover or some equally detestable lie, will try to escape a checkpoint and get shot. Then the terrorists have an incident they can use to stir up the Palestinians against the horrid Jew Zionist murderers.[/list][/li]
Obviously this does not apply to all Palestinians. I am sure than there is a substantial proportion that would prefer to live in peace with Israel. But that is not where the terrorist attacks are coming from. The terrorists are doing that, and it is their desire to create as much bad blood as possible and keep peace from happening. Because if there is peace between Israel and the PA, the terrorists will never achieve their goal of driving Israel into the sea.
So the terrorists target Israeli civilians. They want all Israelis to see all Palestinians with fear and suspicion, and thus fuel the tendency of all Palestinians to see all Israelis the same way. And if a terrorist looks like an average civilian, the average civilian looks like a terrorist.
Peace would be best for everyone, except the terrorists. Therefore the terrorists are working to prevent peace, by making things worse for everyone. Including the Palestinians.
Other Dopers have mentioned the willingness of other nations to use the Palestinians as useful tools to beat Israel up with. If Jordan or Syria or some other nation created a Palestinian homeland, which they could have done any time during the last forty years or so, a lot of the conflicts alleged to be the source of the troubles of the Middle East would disappear. But not everyone wants the Palestinians to have a homeland, unless it is at the expense of Israel. Because they want a staging ground for further attacks, to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Should there be peace? Yes, there should.
Wouldn’t that be better for everyone, including the Palestinians? Yes, of course.
Does everyone want peace? No. Some don’t; they want to destroy Israel.
I really don’t want to start a war of analogies, but I found yours a bit incomplete.
It is true that surrendering would be embarrassing and humiliating to the Palestinians. But as far as your analogy goes, my view is this:
Every day you kick your boss’ daughter in the head, and every day he asks you to stop or he’ll dock your pay. But every day you kick his daughter in the head, and every day your pay gets docked, so your family’s quality of life diminishes.
You are then confronted with the realization that has much as you hate your boss’ daughter, your family’s situation continues to get worse.
In the end, you have the choice, continue at the expense of your family, or kiss the boss’ feet and receive that 30%.
My point through all of this is that life for Palestinians keeps getting worse. After every successive attack Israel retaliates in one form or another.
The difference between this situation for the Israelis and for the Palestinians is that daily life doesn’t change for Israelis. I admit that I really can’t speak for all Israelis, but they have grown accustom to life with terror. After each attack life goes on, people go back to markets and get back on the bus.
But for the Palestinians, life gets worse. Each attack results in tighter check points, houses destroyed, curfews, and civilian deaths. And that’s what baffles me most about the Intifada. I see their life much the way the English treated the Scots, so I respect their desire for freedome etc. But I just can’t grasp the metality that “one more martyr will free us.” Some where, some one in those Bridages must realize that blowing up a checkpoint will make things at that check point worse.
Because as much as we wring our hands over it, terrorism pays.
I contend that terrorism is not random but that it follows a strategic logic. Terrorists use the threat of punishment to coerce a target, usually a liberal western democracy, to withdraw from territory which terrorists consider their homeland. If you examine the entire record of suicide terrorist (not just in Israel/Palestine), it is not difficult to see that the tendencies and timing of suicide attacks are consistent with a rational strategic logic. The tremendous increase in suicide terrorism over the past two decades is due to the fact that terrorists are achieving their goals.
Of 11 acts of suicide terror between 1980-2001, six closely correlate with significant policy changes by the victim state towards the attacker’s major policy goals.
[ul]
1983 – Hezbollah suicide coincided with the complete withdrawal of the French from Lebanon
[li]1983 – Hezbolla terror coincided with Israeli partial withdrawal from Lebanon[/li][li]1994 – LTTE terror brought Sri Lanka to the negotiating table over a separate Tamil state[/li][li]1994 – Hamas terror coincides with partial Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza[/li][li]1995 – Hamas terror coincides with partial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank[/li][li]1997 – Hamas terror secures the release of Hamas leader from prison[/li][li]1996+ – Al Qaeda terror coincides with US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia[/li][/ul]
The other major unresolved issues are Sri Lankan acceptance of the Tamil state, Indian presence in Kashmir, the establishment of a Kurdish homeland, and Israel. I think everyone here is aware enough to realize that in these issues, the terrorists haven’t exactly lost yet.
If you don’t believe me, take it from Prime Minister Rabin:
He said this in 1994.
Those paragons of irrationality, Hamas, said in 2000:
Terrorists have quite reasonably learned that suicide terrorism pays.
He gained worldwide publicity through his policy of civil disobedience and the use of fasting as a form of protest, and was repeatedly imprisoned by the British authorities (for example on March 18, 1922 ** he was sentenced to six years in prison for civil disobedience but served only 2 years). **
