Dial 1-800-468-4285 (U-Haul,Inc.) I’m certain these folks can assist with you needs.
longjohn,
Israel has offered up its evidence to a variety of sources, including Arab and American. And Israeli forces would happily arrest its suspects and put them on trial if it could get them wothout too great of loss of life to its own people. Circumstances do not exist that such commonly occurs.
Your “end result is the same” argument is really quite specious. A Secret Service agent guarding the President spots a gunman aiming a bazooka at the President’s party, shoots two bullets, one hits the gunman, one kills a girl who was standing nearby. A rapist abducts a girl and kills her. The end result is the same. Sorry. Intent matters.
I would hope that we could agree that terrorism is an evil tactic. And I have previously offered up a definition of terrorism: the use of violence against a civilian population with the goal to accomplish a particular set of objectives by means of instilling fear in a general population. HRW documents how Palestinian forces have used civilian centers to locate their operations and used such for protection, extensively boobytrapping it in the process.
You’d leave. Okay. But I think that you’d admit that such is not a reasonable expectation of many from either side of the conflict. Neither side is going to just leave.
“Why can’t the Israelis work for peace” you ask. And what do you suggest that they do to “work for peace”? They have tried unilateral ceasefires. They have been met with bomb atttacks. They have tried offering more in negotiations than anyone had previously imagined possible only to discover that Arafat was not willing to negotiate. Do you suggest that they passively absorb ongoing weekly attacks that scaled to population size are each comparable to 9/11 without doing anything to try to stop them at their source? The best that I could offer to work for peace is let it be known clearly, a Palestinian leadership that is able to prove that it is willing to be a full partner in stopping terror, will be met at the negotiating table with open arms.
I appreciate that coll acknowledges that terror attacks are counter-productive. And he’s right that limiting attacks to military targets in occupied territories would be less ineffective. That would not be terrorism, it would be guerilla warfare. I’d like to take his final points to both agree and disagree with:
(a) Palestinian society has too long been fragmented and many opposition movements will not swear off violence per se.
Agreed. Any solution must offer the Israeli side some believable solution to controlling those violent elements.
(b) The Israeli current government will clearly use any act of violence by any party to blame the whole and as corrallary
Agreed at this point in time only because the current leadership has so consistently aided and abetted the terror, and has made no good faith effort to stop terror activities. Israeli leadership has given up on giving Arafat’s version of the PA more chances. A PA that was making a good faith effort to shut down the terror operations would not be blamed. It would instead gain the moral high ground, and would get more in negotiations as Israel would feel less need to control all aspects of its security itself. (Oh yes, coll calls this a “motherfucking fantasy”.)
© Resort to effective agitprop to break up image of peaceful resistance To break up false images … real peaceful protest would allow the mainstream of Israel to gain the upper hand on the minority ultra-orthodox and expansionist elements (whose positions are strengthened by every attack.)
(d) Unilateral action against violent groups without halt to settlment expansion and commitment to near-term state will only end up having your influence evaporate like piss in the desert.
I would agree that settlement expansion must stop. But what unilateral action? A near term state has been committed to, but only if security can be assured.
From the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,746121,00.html
Grandmothers without their heart medication, kids shot by soldiers for trying to go to school, hospitals running out of water, neighborhoods without electricity, families without food–yeah, Palestinians should just sit by and “peacefully protest” while the world lets this happen.
How realistic is that?
WW2, any of the Allied Powers took massive amounts of land. Ditto for Russia. Returned most if not all of the land. Trying to think of something more post WW2, and am drawing a blank except there has to be examples in what used to be Serbia.
How about your examples? There is Israel
It sucks big time all right. But is blowing up school buses going to put an end to any of it? The Palestinians have to decide what they really want; a peaceful and stable society or a perpetual war they’ll never win? Terrorism is only an effective plan if the latter is their goal.
DSaid asked a few times what I would do?
Well, I already wrote the 25th of June, in bold text:
“In fact, I agree to everything that ChrisG1016 wrote!”, but let me answer question by question:
1) “What would You do, if Your neighbourhood/country would be occupied?”
a) I would fight with all means against the occupying army.
Not unarmed people = civilians.
b) I would try to get the information out to the world about the current situation. Inviting reporters etc., to my country.
c) I would try to rise funds abroad for keeping up the fight, the information war as well as the military one.
I would never bomb any civilians, not in my country or inside the occupied country, or any country.
If some of my countrymen would do that, I would try to stop them, even by killing, because they would be playing directly into the hands of the enemy = they would be enemy collaborators.
I am completely against murder/slaughter/killing (on civilians) in war or peace.
In a war it is everyone’s duty to disable the enemies armed forces, even if it would mean killing. Armed forces means the army, the armed police or whatever the enemy brings with them into Your country that is armed.
I would define that a war has begun, when an army oversteps it’s own borders into my country.
Is this completely clear? About the civilians and these bombing guys?
2) How would You look at settlers that would come from the occupying country?
If the settlers are armed, and ready to use their arms, they are a part of the occupying forces. (Well, I can not see why they would be armed, if they would not be ready to use them.)
If someone is intruding my country, armed, there will not be anything called “self-defense”, in my eyes. I will not fight unarmed people = civilians.
Is this clear?
3) What should the Palestinian do?
I have never been at the place, but I think I have some kind of picture of the situation, and feel free to inform me more about it. so,
a) I would fight with all means against the occupying army. But only the armed forces. In the case of war, as I see the situation is now, also the army inside the enemy country. [But not against civilians, never and no-where].
b) I would try to get the information out to the world about the current situation. Inviting reporters etc., to my country.
As I see it there is some good efforts in this direction in the sites:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/index.asp
and the newspaper:
http://palestinechronicle.com/
One thing I would certainly do is to print the map
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
of the borders suggested for Palestine in December 2000, known as “Barak’s (Generous?) Offer”.
It was shocking for me to see that Palestine would have, according to that suggestion, would have been 100% surrounded by Israel/Israelian army!
Only South-Africa had this kind of conditions.
Then they say that Arafat and The Palestinians always blows The Peace!!!???
Or am I wrong informed? Can someone produce the maps? Sites?
On this site You can also see the map presented by the Israeli team at Taba, in January 2001. According to the text, The Palestinians would have considered it as a basis for negotiations.
Personally I would not have accepted this, if it would be my country/homeland or bantustan or what-ever You want to call it.
Furthermore the text in this site says that Barak did not dare to show this map to the Israeli people.
Is this true? Any links?
c) I would try to rise funds abroad for keeping up the fight, the information war as well as the military one.
I would never bomb any civilians, not in my country or inside the occupaiting country. If some of my countrymen would do that, I would try to stop them, because they would be playing directly into the hands of the enemy.
d) I would also try to make “a wall” against the Israelian (UN)-borders, so that no-one of my countrymen could go there and make anything stupid as bombing etc., and no army/political organ could just tell that “there has been some terrorists coming from Your side!” and take the tanks and attack my country.
In this situation it is impossible, because the Israelian army is inside the territory, as well as other reasons; lack of everything and so on.
This, control of boarders, is just what every country usually do; nobody can uncontrolled go through the border. Neither direction.
I have hard to believe that Israel could not do or afford this.
Therefore I do not believe in “that we have to attack because the bad guys comes from that direction”. It is politically very easy to raise the mob, and tell we have to stop them (by attacking)!!!
Even Stalin was attacking Finland (my country) saying: “Finland attacked first!”
Amazingly nobody seem to ask the question why can not the most effective army in the world just guard some hundred miles of border?
And if the bombing inside Israel would continue, there are laws, like in any country. Bring these guys to court as USA does. In some cases anyhow.
Because the situation is like it is, I would ask UN to do the control of the border. After some stabilization of the situation, UN could school my countrymen to do the job, but I would still agree to that the UN would control the process of normalization.
UN would also be welcomed to solve other questions together with my countrymen.
If UN would not agree, because of the costs etc., I would ask them to send as many observers as possible to my country.
This, d), would be the most important thing to do, together with:
e) I would try to find as many Palestinian and Israelian that could discuss these problems: the silent majority in both countries, even if they would be the minority just now. And even if it would take a lot of time.
These majorities, in each country would elect people to office, that really could begin to negotiate about a peace in the area.
I would not listen to some Arabic sheik that would tell that he will not help if we do not vote for this or that. Especially not, if he would have been elected himself, after “a not so clear” election, by the supreme court his father has nominated.
Oh, fuck, it was not an Arabic sheik! So sorry!
Anyhow, whoever this was, had nothing to say about the opposite guy, Sharon, whose army is now occupying land killing people outside his country?
When the world is pointing at a dead body, it is so convienient to say: “Yes, a typical terrorist! We got him, did we not!”, even if other words/phrases are used.
Would I trust Sharon?
Absolutely not!
He is one of the worst hawks in the history of Israel.
I would not trust a man that has always(?) voted against every international peace treat; Oslo, Camp David etc.
Would I lay down and wait that they go away and take their 200.000 settlers with them?
Never, I do not believe that this would ever happen.
And when it comes to the illegal settlers, this most powerful nation in the area can not stop it’s citizens from making crimes? What would the signature of this kind of weak leader mean on a piece of paper, if he can not stop his own countrymen from doing crimes outside Israel?
OK, I know he can, he is just lying that he can’t. And if he would sign anything, e.g. on which conditions and when he would leave, I would be glad to get it in black and white.
Even if I would not count so much on this paper.
Well, dear reader, I think I would have to re-think here and there, but these would be my main ideas.
In this tread, the following persons answered, some of them more or less, these 3 original questions: MGibson, Ludovic, Collounsbury and very clearly and bravely by ChrisG1016.
Also Tristan gave quite clear answers.
The other persons did write in this tread, thank You all for that, but I am also curious to hear their views on these 3 questions, especially: boyohboy17, Sam Stone, DSeid, Lemur866 and naturally everyone else who is interested to enlighten me with their views on these questions and so on.
However, it would be wrong “to demand” any answers, I am just curious.
There has been also other writers in this tread. Also a thank You! from me to them.
Thank You for reading. I hope I hear soon from You all!
Thank you Henry for your answer. You’d fight a guerilla war and define any settler as a military target. (Does this include children in settler families?) Like coll. Understood.
As to Gush Shalom’s map - interestingly they don’t say where they got their information. Interesting because Barak says no such map exists. What was actually offered at CD2? According to Dennis Ross, chief US negotiator
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html
He categorically denies that the offer discussed divided Palestine into cantons. Don’t believe him? Malley, another US negotiator, has been more sympathetic to the Palestinian position, but agrees with Ross that Barak’s team offered more than anyone could have dreamed for them to offer and that a fair and just deal would have resulted if Arafat had been willing to negotiate. (He also doles out blame for Arafat’s reticence all around, and includes fault to both the US and Barak for mishandling the preamble to the talks. His major point is that the current Israeli POV that Arafat is really only interested in Israel’s total destruction, and has proven that he will never negotiate in good faith, is, in his view, an unconstructive overstatement that prevents future progress.) You can search for several past threads that have discussed these subjects.
And mainsteam Israel agrees with you on one thing. The security fence is going up. (also the subject of past threads) Mostly along the pre-1967 borders (with some notable exceptions). Will settlers be forcibly evacuated, left to their own devices, or what? Will the fence become a tentative basis for negotiating a political border? Depends on who is talking. And who wins the next Israeli election. For now Netenyahu is gaining ground as Palstinian terroristic violence plays into his hard line position. This would not be good.
Oh, the source for Malley’s thoughts - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Again, read the cite. Malley has fault to find with everyone. I am admittedly quoting those sections that address the point asked only.
I’m going to try to ask this in a way that doesn’t imply a racist conception of Palestinians:
Is passive resistance culturally possible for them?
I ask this because I doubt it, for a couple reasons: they’ve been living with armed resistance for a couple generations now; their effective power structures are geared towards terrorism; the current generation of suicide bombers were born in the refugee camps, hiding weapons and hearing stories about martyrs (the photographs of children as suicide bombers is symptomatic of this); the rhetoric of their religious practices is geared towards militant resistance (which I don’t believe is true of Islam generally).
Collounsbury, you’re probably the best person to answer this with analysis, rather than media perceptions.
Squish: honestreporting.com classifies the Guardian as the publication with the worst anti-Israel bias. A publication that still thinks that “Israel simply has no right to exist,” can’t possibly qualify as a valid source. http://honestreporting.com/critiques/2001/08_guardian1.asp
Henry B: if you are curious as to my answers to your three questions, feel free to read my first post in this thread.
You also mentioned your disbelief and horror that the suggested Palastinian state had such a strange, jagged shape and was completely surrounded by Israel. Perhaps you can imagine how others viewed the strange jagged shape of Israel and how it was completely surrounded by Arab states. Furthermore, you’d like the UN to basically arbitrate the situation? Repeatedly the UN (except the USA in some cases) has sided with the Arabs against Israel, even to the point of condemning Israel for the non-existant Jenin massacre. The UN is not impartial.
You also seemed pretty sure of this comment:
Would I lay down and wait that they go away and take their 200.000 settlers with them? Never, I do not believe that this would ever happen.
May I suggest reading the news. Sharon seems to be dismantling settlements. Not bad for an “enemy of the peace.”
hansel: I hope and pray that the Palestinians are capable of a response other than terrorism. Only time (and I’m sure Collounsbury) will tell.
As an occasional Guardian reader I can say that having looked at honestreporting.com it does not give a description I recognise. The Guardian is a liberal paper here (the UK) and is (unusuall) in that is is owned by a trust rather than a businessman. It has an independence of view that means a wide range of opinions are published. At best, honestreporting.com is selective in its quoting.
I very much doubt that it thinks “Israel simpy has no right to exist” - I have seen editorials to the contrary. It may have reported, quoted or published articles by individuals who do hold that view, however.
A quick glance at its website seems to show a bias all of its own. I note its front page claims it “… started at the initiative of The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah” - and Aish HaTorah’s http://www.aish.com/aishint/ pages show them as clearly promoting Judaism and Israel, perhaps not the best arbitrators in trying to get a fair understanding of this conflict.
DSeid wrote:
“Thank you Henry for your answer. You’d fight a guerilla war and define any settler as a military target. (Does this include children in settler families?) Like coll. Understood.”
Please read again my answer:
"a) I would fight with all means against the occupying army.
Not unarmed people = civilians."
Here I would say that fighting with settlers is not important as long as they keep to themselves. They will go, when the army will go.
Or maybe they just pay for the land they taken and became a part of the Palestinian republic? Even if I do not think so, but again to go to Finland (my country): If and when Russia gives Karelia back, the Russians living there can stay. No problem with that, from my point of view.
About a week ago the settlers went through a Palestinian village and killed a man. The BBC-site was here in some discussions, but anyway, what could have happened, if these Palestinians were armed everyone can think by themselves.
If I would have been there, I would not have silently looked how the mob is killing my neighbour. And I do not think You would either, if You would live in California or Chicago or…
and I wrote further:
"I would never bomb any civilians, not in my country or inside the occupied country, or any country.
If some of my countrymen would do that, I would try to stop them, even by killing, because they would be playing directly into the hands of the enemy = they would be enemy collaborators."
Yes shoot the fucking collaborators! Or better, put them through court etc.
and I wrote further:
"I am completely against murder/slaughter/killing (on civilians) in war or peace."
and I wrote further:
"I will not fight unarmed people = civilians.
Is this clear?"
and I wrote further:
"I would never bomb any civilians, not in my country or inside the occupied country, or any country.
If some of my countrymen would do that, I would try to stop them, even by killing, because they would be playing directly into the hands of the enemy = they would be enemy collaborators."
So, If You are able to read, I would rather kill my contrymen (if they would be collaborators, in the meaning described above), but not kill civilians!
"Is this completely clear???"
DSeid wrote:
“As to Gush Shalom’s map - interestingly they don’t say where they got their information. Interesting because Barak says no such map exists.”
I do not know, but Barak lies if he had said so, if I have to believe Your Fox-site You mentioned in Your post.
About this Fox-site: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html
Read it very carefully. There You can see quite clearly between the lines, that there is an American suggestion about the forces around future Palestine would be international. Then there is the Israelian suggestion (demand) that the forces should be Israelian!
The Americans seems to believe that these forces could be moved out within 6 years. (The Shalom-guys that made the map, see site below, believed that not within 50 years).
There is no mentioning about what Israel thinks about the time-shedule.
What kind of negotiation would it be, if I told You that “I keep California, till I go away!?”
The thing is, that the Palestinians did not want to back from what was earlier negotiated in Oslo. About this a little bit later, now back to Fox-news.
Please read the whole tread, I just want to take this in the highlight (my comments in brackets):
“ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza. And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.”
(A map or no map?, that is the question.)
HUME: Right.
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map" (so there was a map!) “there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous.”
(So even the colours are the same as in the map these shalom-guys presents. Maybe these guys in Fox are leaking more classified material as well?;))
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
I do not know where the shalom-guys got their map. Maybe from Fox-news? Maybe from Arafat?
The shalom-guys says: When we Palestinians Signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, they agreed to accept this 22% FOR A PALESTINIAN STATE AND RECOGNISE ISRAEL WITHIN THE REMAINING 78% OF THE HISTORIC PALESTINIAN HOMELAND.
Conceding 78% of the land was a huge Palestinian compromise but one not “generous” enough for Barak.
In his talks with the Palestinians, it became clear that he wanted more…"
And back again to Fox:
"Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect…
ROSS: Right.
HUME: … that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage."
(If there would have been international forces (UN or American-Europe), and it would have been only temporary, why elevate anything?)
"BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them."
I do not see that Mr Ross and Mr Barnes are very objective, more leading the converstation…, but please read Yourself.
More, even very objective is Mr Malley, whose article is very long and this You should also read, because to take something here and something there, will not give the whole picture.
Look at what DSeid has taken from that article and then look at this, from the same article:
“Moreover, the steps Barak undertook to husband his resources while negotiating a historical final deal were interpreted by the Palestinians as efforts to weaken them while imposing an unfair one.
Particularly troubling from this perspective was Barak’s attitude toward the interim commitments, based on the Oslo, Wye, and later agreements. Those who claim that Arafat lacked interest in a permanent deal miss the point.
Like Barak, the Palestinian leader felt that permanent status negotiations were long overdue; unlike Barak, he did not think that this justified doing away with the interim obligations.”
Dear reader, read the whole site that [DSeid has mostly interpreted like the devil reading the Bible], but has in the very best manners and in a most appreciated way given us:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
Have to run, coming back soon.
Meanwhile, everyone can think about “what should/would I do if I were a Palestinian (leader)???”
And maybe write something, huh?
Hansel wrote:
“Is passive resistance culturally possible for them?”
No I do not think so. If I am very frank. They are like us.
But anyhow I think it is more possible for them, than to e.g. European countries.
Think that some most civliced people (some 200.000 citizen)would move into Belgium, begin to put up houses there on the fields, (no bulldozers), and the Belgians would go on hungerstrike?
[b[Boyohboy17** wrote:
“Henry B: if you are curious as to my answers to your three questions, feel free to read my first post in this thread.”
Well, let me read and think. The thoughts are my own, no blame, absolutely no blame on You!
If I hurt Your feelings by misprinting Your inner thoughts, please forgive me!
Anyhow [putting on the DSSR-helmet (Deep-Soul-Search-Radar),
“most-positive”-mode] ;), getting:
“1) What would You do, if Your neighbourhood/country would be occupied?”
I would move to America and call the other ones Nazi!
“2) How would You look at settlers that would come from the occupying country?”
I would open the borders and live with my neighbours happily ever after!
(My very ashtonished voice crying out in the dark: “Shalom-Sharon, do You hear this guy. He’s right! Let’s make all of them most honourable citizens!”
"3) What should the Palestinian do?
The Palestinians have 3 choices:
- Kill more innocent men, women, and children.
- Just go away.
- Work with Israelis to create a society in which Arabs and Jews can live together peacefully (in the same way that Israeli-Arabs and Jews already do).
It’s easy to guess which one I’d choose."
This is a tricky one!
But I think [putting the most powerful buzz-mode on. F***, there went my hear in a smoke!], I think,… n:o 2!
Number two is now number one!
Yeah, go away! Go to Israel…, or America?
Dear Boyohboy17, my DSSR-helmet does not work properly. Inside me something is whispering that everything in this soul searching went wrong. I am so sorry.
Anyhow, Your news was a great delight to my old eyes.
Think, 10 or even more settlers has to settle somewhere else!
The rest 200.000 has the permission to build, the permission from the Israeli government.
I did not know that a most legal regime, in a most democratic country can do that?
I whish my president will give me Kreml or the White House. There is a colour TV in both of them. My president is such a nice chick, I’m sure she will give one or the other to me.
Back to Palestina:
Or why to stop the building-work if it has already begun? Build it ready for Christ sake!
I suggest that the settlers move to Israel, gives the “condos” to the Palestinans and then Mr. Bush pays the condos (+20% is fair, isn’t it?) to these settlers, and everybody is happy!
Anyhow Mr. Bush told that he has a lot of tax-payer money that he will spread around anyhow. So why not buy condos?
Of course the American taxpayers will not be happy, but it can be cut from the war-budget, so it can’t hurt anyone.
Without war You do not need so big budget, do You?
I am sure that Boyohboy, Mr Sharon, Mr Bush and I, can sort this out! We leave the beardy guy away from our discussions (Mr Bush wants it that way):
Do as planned here and I will be the next president of Palestine and if we can not stuff all people into Israel or the condos, let’s just try Belgium!
To those that do not appreciate irony, I assure that there is non, I am very serious about this plan!
Dead serious!
Much caffeine in the vodka these days Henry, or did a few amanita muscaria mistakenly end up in the chanterelle stew?
Sparc, no I have been sober some time, and this fungus You refer to, I think it is the “fly”-mushroom that the vikings used in battle…, well, it has not come up yet.
Maybe Cantharellus cibarius is found in the woods, I have to go and check.
But what can You tell these guys. They can write, but read only selectively. Strange schools they have these days.
Henry B, I’ve read the Fox interview that you cited. Are you sure that you cited the correct article? If you would actually read the text instead of making up your own interpretation, you’d notice that the article states the following:
-
The peace agreement was suggested by the USA. It involved giving the Palestinians 95% of the land that they wanted, as well as another 2%. If I’m correct, it even allowed the refugees to return to the new Palestinian homeland.
-
Barak was willing to agree to this deal.
-
Arafat wasn’t exactly reciprocating. “Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea.”
-
Israeli forces around the Palestinian state wouldn’t be guarding the Palestinian border, they’d be guarding the Israeli border. Is it a policy in Finland not to guard borders?
As long as you’re reading, you may want to have a look at that haaretz article again. 10 settlements, not settlers. 10 villages are being dismantled, the people forcibly removed, within 24 hours.
If your brain isn’t worn out from all this reading, go back and have another look at my post. You might understand it this time.
Henry, Believe it or not I’ve tried to read your freeflow rant of ideas and make some sense of what you have written. It is not an easy task.
Let me do my best to respond to what I think that you have said.
If you were Palestinian you would limit attacks to military targets in the West Bank. Since settlers have guns, settlers and settlements would be considered military objectives. Is this correct?
As to my posting only part of Malley’s article … I was quite clear that Malley sees plenty of blame to go around. What actaully occurred at CD2? Malley, Clinton, and Ross all agree that Arafat wasn’t willing to deal, and that a fair settlement would have resulted if he had been. So this much I think we can believe is true, since all three state it. Malley disagrees with Ross and Clinton about a lot else and maybe he is the accurate one, I don’t know. I was answering the request for a cite about the Gush Shalom map. Acording to Malley no hard map was offered but rather some bases to work from, and he describes what those bases were, Ross describes what was put on the table a little differently. I like how Malley put it
But the offer “discussed” was likely something similar to the descriptions given by Ross and Malley. They were there. And neither description is what Gush Shalom describes.
I find your reference to recognizing Israel in 78% of “historic Palestine” as generous, quite funny. As if land that is now Israel proper is now on the table for discussion. “Hey,” the defeated aggressor says years later, “we’ll let you live afterall, that’s generous of us isn’t it?” Might as well be offering to allow the sun to shine. The area for negotiation is the West Bank and Gaza. In return for both sides not killing each other (each should want that, no?) the Palestinians get most of that area for a state, and hopefully negotiate for tax revenues, job opportunities, and investments as well. Israel’s right to exist is not a concession asked for. It is a fact of the landscape. The Arab’s “concession” of Israel proper is one made only because they had failed in multiple attempts to destroy it and have come to grips with it as a matter of fact.
What you fail to comprehend is that Israel did not attack and occupy a country of Palestine. Palestine was created by UN mandate and then annexed by Arab countries who proceeded to then try to destroy the new country of Israel as well. The land that is now called The West Bank was under Jordanian control for years and no Palestine was built there.
Your analogies are just fallacious.
Israel took over The West Bank in self defense. If there was no more need for self defense she would almost entirely move out. Those Israelis of an expansionist bent are far outnumbered by those who want Israel out of the West Bank. The more you raise the Israeli need to defend herself the less likely such withdrawl is to occur even in part. The more the hardline Right gains support.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. The circumstances as I implied in my previous intervention and the larger inclinations and traditions of Palestinian political society since 1948 mitigate against the success, as does the fact of effective Shin Bet strategies of divide and conquer (viz quasi-sponsorship of Hamas against PLO).
The last point is ambiguous. Islamic traidtion does support somewhat more strongly militant resistance to an opponent, although that does not of necessity mean the sorts of things P radicals have descended to with alarming regularity. On the other hand there is also a (sometimes strong, more often weaker) alternate tradition of quietist resistance. However that line of reasoning has not been popular in recent decades.
Under current circumstances I do not see passive resistance working for both internal and external reasons.
Honestreporting.com is anything but honest reporting; it’s a Jewish/Israeli propaganda arm, as has been pointed out more diplomatically by ScarletSteve.
DSeid, are you denying Deir Yassin and other Israeli atrocities?
And as to the OP–aren’t Palestinians following the shining example of Zionist terrorists?
Deir Yassin, for any one who may not know, refers to an event in 1948 in which some up to 250 Arab soldiers and civilians were killed by Jewish soldiers. Deir Yassin was used as a base for Arab troops. These facts are undisputed. Menachim Begin led the operation and his version of the events was that they warned the citizenry to evacuate before the attack. Others, including Israeli voices such as Ben-Gurion, claim that a massacre had transpired after the attack. Begin denied it and called such charges slander. No one knows for sure what really happened. I certainly don’t.
What is illustrated here? If the worst case is true, then it was one episode from 54 years ago compared to ongoing atrocities weekly. That occurred at a time that similar actions were being inflicted upon Jewish towns by Arabs with such acts being openly caled for by Arab leadership. No Israeli claimed Deir Yassin with pride and no one really knows what happened.
Why is Deir Yassin constantly brought up 54 years later? Because there is so little to bring up. Israelis are not terrorists. They are not perfect and have had some hateful people in their ranks who I am sure have been responsible for evil acts. But these are exceptional acts and are generally disciplined effectively by Israel herself.