Israel has never had as a goal the eradication of Palestinian Arabs as a nation. They accepted the U. N. Partition Plan in 1947, which would have meant just such a nation’s existence. They never invaded Gaza or the West Bank when those areas were held by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. They’d happily hand over the keys to a new nation if they felt they could trust the drivers.
Sadly, such trust has never been indicated. That’s why the Israelis only vacated Gaza after building a wall to hide behind.
I am not persuaded that the “extremists” are not in fact the majority of the population, for all for the reasons Sam listed. To grow up in Palestine in this day and age is to be subjected to death-cult propaganda. It’s a deeply fucked-up culture at this point.
The question is, how much control does the ‘average Palestinian’ even have? The thugs run the joint, and they’re not above using terror on their own people to keep them in line. What do you think the life expectancy is of a Palestinian leader who would come out and seriously call for the disbanding of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, normal relations with Israel, the arrest of militants, and peaceful coexistence? Every leader the Palestinians have ever had has had to straddle a fine line where they make peaceful sounding gestures to the world, while inciting violence at home or at least turning a blind eye to it. Arresting militants and then letting them out the back door the next day is a common way to ‘crack down on terror’. It’s a smokescreen. The real players are not the people, but the terror groups. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, etc.
And at this point, another real problem is that the Palestinian economy is a basket case, the people have been radicalized by years of propaganda and tit-for-tat violence, and it’s hard to imagine the place turning into a thriving, economically sane country, even without the big bad Israelis living next door.
For centuries until the end of World War I, it was the Ottoman Turks’ “wallet.” Then it belonged to the British. The British wanted to rid themselves of it. The Zionists were happy to have half. The Arabs (and to suggest there was a distinct “Palestinian” identity to them at the time is untrue, though clearly one has come into existence since) wanted it all.
Israel has a right to exist as a nation. And it has never demanded more from the Arabs than to accept that.
Although it’s also important to draw a distinction between hamas and al Q. Hamas see themselves as fighting a defensive war which is an allowable concept in islam. As far as I’m aware (could be wrong) suicide is strongly forbidden by islam. The only exception would be if you were entering a battle in which you knew you would die. This would be a form of suicide in a way (entering a battle in which you know you will die) but, as long as the cause is just, you will still get into heaven.
If you are fighting a just cause against a very powerful enemy such that suicide is the only means available to strike a blow then it is allowable. I think, strictly speaking, you can only blow yourself up if the enemy soldiers are about to enter your house and you think you will take some of them with you. This “house” concept has been extended to mean your country.
So, many muslims may be ambivalent (or even supportive) of the Palestinians cause because they can see the argument that the Palestinians are acting within the parameters allowed by islam. The Palestinians think (rightly or wrongly) that they are entitled to use suicide bombing by the laws of islam as part of a defensive jihad.
The al Q bunch are more into offensive jihad - attacking neighbouring countries even in times of peace just to “strike terror into them” and maintain the jezyah. They follow the teachings of Abdullah Azam. Azzam was a lecturer at Osama’s university in Jeddah and they probably met there. They disagreed over certain things - Azzam wanted to attack the “corrupt” muslim regimes while Osama wanted to attack the west as well. Azzam was killed in a car bomb attack in 1989 and it’s possible that Osama did it.
Anyway, point is, Hamas see themselves as occupying moral higher ground than al Q. I think even they condemned 9/11 as something they would never stoop to (although I could be remembering wrong).
I’d be interested to know specifically what you think Israel should do to end the conflict. Seriously. Can you put down, in point form if you’d like, the steps you think Israel has to take before you think a just peace could be had? Nothing vague like, “respect the rights of the Palestians”, but concrete actions.
I’ll turn your question around: what would it take so that “the average Palestinian says enough, and public attitudes change such that Hamas can no longer find support among the population”?
My take- Israeli withdrawl to near Green Line and some real economic opportunities materialzing.
The question to me is less whether or not Israel is willing to deliver the first (in return for real security), but if the vested powers will allow the second to happen even if Israel does. If Israel didn’t exist oppressive Arab regeimes (both governmental and extra-governmental, like Hammas) would need to create her.
It seems to me that a big issue here is that Israel is under the control of a solid government, whereas the Palestinians aren’t. Sure, there is a Palestinian Authority, but I take it that they don’t really have a lot of authority. There are all these terrorist groups operating independently, and you hear about the leaders trying to “rein them in,” but it’s not really happening.
On one side is an established and organized force (Israel,) with a real government, real political moves that they follow through in a tangible way. Giving over the Gaza Strip seems like a very tangible move. On the other side, it’s more disorganized, and there are a lot of smaller terrorist groups who do whatever they want, government be damned. If Israel were fighting Iraq or something (back when it had a real government), they could probably negotiate more effectively.
What concessions have the Palestinians made? Even when they say they’ll stop attacks, they seem to always do it anyway. To me, it seems like they never keep their promises. This seems to also have been the case with Israel too, but the way I see it, not anymore. They pulled out of the Gaza strip. They uprooted homes, and families - destroyed peoples’ livelihoods. Say whatever you want about whether the settlers were right or wrong - they had lives, families, and homes, and that was wrecked so Israel could give the area back to the Arabs. But now that they’ve done that, the terrorists should really make good on the cease-fire, instead of threatening to keep attacking.
It was never an agreed upon cease fire , it was just convienent for the various groups to allow the Israelis to depart in peace , sort of.
Several bloggers and others have already commented that this is a military like move by Gen Sharon, reduce the supply lines , reduce the need for Israeli troops to guard , patrol , and reduces casualties.
When Hamas and other groups decide that its business as usual and start to lob rockets and other weapons fire across the border , its going to be viewed as an external assault on israel rather than an internal terrorism problem.
Done. And several others that have that same opinion, that the only thing that will get the average Palestinian to say “enough” and undermine Hamas support is total destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. But no, I don’t see it that way and I doubt that Sam or Tamerlane (for examples) do either, even if their thought on what would be satisfactory and what get in the way turns out to be substantially different than mine.
For example, during the Clinton era with Barak - if Arafat had had the leadership to really come to the table and brought back an offer of 95% plus of the West Bank and Gaza with some symbolic part of greater Jerusalum, and a good package of co-investments, tax sharing, water rights, and international help with developing infrastructure for schools, inustry, etc (all of which was at that point very doable) and used his bully pulpit to sell it and a future of hope … I think the average Palestinian would have been satisfied. Hamas wouldn’t, but at that point their support would be diminished.
Even today, Arab media has shown the images of settlers being uprooted, of the tears, and it has indeed undermined some Hamas support. Hamas isn’t helped by Arabs seeing Jews as human being uprooted from their homes, even if they believe they never should have been their in the first place.
No this is no “blood feud” any more than it is a situation where straightforward negotiations between two sides is likely to work. It is a much complicated mess than all that with many more actors stirring up the pot for their own ends.
Part of the popularity of Hamas, though, isn’t because of Israel…it’s because of the PLO. The PLO is just really corrupt and has been for a long time. Arafat had all sorts of bank accounts filled with embezzled aid money that was supposed to help the Palestinian people, and the PLO big shots all live really well. Hamas, on the other hand, has a reputation of being honest. They set up charity schools, hospitals, food aid, youth programs, etc. I see that Tamerlane has mentioned this.
So another thing that would reduce their support would be if the PLO and PA reformed itself…if it tried to root out corruption and actually help the Palestinian people.
It’s important to note that Hamas has been gaining recently in local elections, that Palestinian response to the Gaza withdrawal was “today Gaza, tomorrow West Bank and Jerusalem,” and that in this article, Abbas condemned Israel’s killing of five terrorists, did not condemn the earlier stabbing of a British Jew in the Old City of Jerusalem or rocket fire on Sederot, both after the Gaza withdrawal, and then complained that Israel’s actions would renew the cycle of violence. His exhortations to his people were not to hold back on the violence because violence is wrong, or even the watered-down “counterproductiove to the Palestinian cause,” but because it would give Israel a pretext to continue the violence. So not only is he not condemning violence in its own right, but the reality seems to be that the only logic that will get his people to hold back includes villification of Israel.
No shit they were happy to have half (55% actually), considering they were only 33% of the population. And most of them were newcomers considering that in 1922 the Jewish population was only 11%.
Yeah, I can’t imagine why the Arabs were pissed off, especially since the Jews had been evicting Arab peasants off their land for the previous 25 years as they immigrated in to be replaced by Jewish settlers.
And the Zionists were hardly universally happy to have 55% of the land. Menachim Begin violently opposed it and said, “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized … Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for ever.” Of course, he later became Prime Minister and said in 1977, “The Jewish people have unchallengeable, eternal, historic right to the Land of Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the inheritance of their forefathers” when he began his policy of settlements.
And of course, David Ben-Gurion himself stated in a speech in 1938, “After we become a strong force as the result of the creation of the state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine. The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion. The state will have to preserve order – not by preaching but with machine guns.”
