For most of them, yes. I think you’ll find that there were fewer Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands from the start of the Intifada until now than there were in, for example, that single “Black September” inclident (more on the relevance of that below).
Participating in a riot justifies riot-control tactics. Participating in a riot that includes live ammunition justifies the return fire of live ammunition.
True, he was a war general. Nonetheless, he was neither perpetrating nor advocating acts of violence during the visit that touched off this new escalation of hostilities.
Neither am I. Here’s what I said in my post, in case you had missed that part:
Back to quotes from you…
I wasn’t. You’re continuing to mix up two things. I “glossed over” Mohammed’s death by stating that it was accidental. I refuted your portrayal of Mohammed as an “innocent” by mentioning his stone-throwing.
Your second paragraph here is exactly the reason why “Black September” is germane. The state of Jordan, which has an indigenous population that is 75% Palestinian, was maintained through violence toward that population. Nonetheless, at no later time has that act of violence been used to condemn Jordan as a racist state, or to justify further acts of rebellion, as you have used Dir Yassein to justify the intifada. At no time has that act been used to suggest that King Hussein should not visit Palestinian shrines within territory controlled by him, as you have used Sharon’s wartime past (and that was only during war; he never fired or ordered fire on civilians as King Hussein did) to justify the Palestinian violence following Sharon’s visit. No, somehow these justifications for Palestinian violence only apply to Israel. This is very much in line with Palestinian propoganda, which is an organized effort to extract territorial concessions from Israel but from no other source, not even the source which for twenty years controlled the area that the Palestinians are claiming as their own and then lost it in a war that it provoked.
Grendel69:
Yes he did…and what of it? Did he or they make any threats? Did they do anything other than defend his person? Is Sharon even in a position to make orders vis a vis the peace talks? No, no and no.
But somehow, a step onto that land by an opposition politician has translated into indiscriminate acts of violence against all Israelis.
CMK…
You seriously don’t think that the use of 1000 soldiers wasn’t a purposeful message being sent to the Palestinians???
Sharon would have been just as well protected with 100. There was no need for 1000. It was his attempt to antagonize and create friction. If anything it was designed to put pressure on Barak.
This may or may not be of interest for this discussion, but what the heck.
In previous visits to Israel, we have been present at Israely Army bases (during times of peace, but still very high tensions between Israel, it’s neighbors, and the Palestinian population in Israel). The soldiers were asked to spend some time with us, and talk about their training and their mission.
Each one talked about the fact that they are trained to protect the population and their own person, trained to fire only at targets presenting deadly danger, and not to fire upon civillians unless all other means are not possible.
I have also heard first hand accounts from people who were involved in voilence on both sides, and never did I hear from a single Israeli the idea that shooting any un-armed person is justified (much less a 12 year old). Make what you will of this, but I firmly believe after these experiences that it is not the policy of the Israeli government to consider disposable the lives of Palestinians.
I do have one observation. I just cannot figure out why it is necessary to put children in the midst of all this violence. What I mean is, as a Palestinian, can someone tell me why there have to be fourteen, twelve and ten year olds at demonstrations where the intent is to confront armed soldiers, throw rocks to provoke them (and sometimes fire bombs) and get a responce which can then be televised and prited for the world to see. I can’t help but think that some of this is planned for a reason, and I also can’t help but think that perents who are allowing their children to participate are less than reasonble.
I stand corrected on the refugees from 1949-1967 issue. But, it still doesn’t change my point. And I am not saying it is black or white. It is far from it. Both sides have sinned, and both sides have done good.
I’ve been to Israel 9 times. I have lots of family living there, and of course I am biased to their side. But, I am American at the core, and Judaism does not play a large role in my life. I am a bleeding-heart liberal, and I believe in fair human rights for everybody, whether they be an opposition leader in Israel or a Palestinian 12 year old kid.
Most of all, the Middle East is a beautiful and marvelous place. Jerusalem holds more of the world’s history in a city block than all that is contained in North America. Most of all, I want to see peace there.
To Olentzero’s comments about the Jews being an invading force. First, I’ll point out that there has always been a Jewish population in Israel. Second, I’ll point out that most of the 20th century immigration into Israel was legitimate, and the Jews by-and-large bought their land fair and square.
Both of these are besides the real point. The Jews after 1945 had no where to go. After 1948, there was a place for them to go (by 50 country recognition after the 1949 armistice), and they went there. And they stayed there. It is their home, just as I live in Houston (not Lithuania) and my friends live in Sydney (not English prisons) and you live wherever you live. Populations move, and have moved since Homo sapiens left the Olduvai Gorge. Saying that the Israeli state lacks legitimacy is not really saying anything – do you expect the Jews not to have a state? Do you expect them to go back to Europe? Do you expect them to go find their old homes in Lithuania and Poland and start anew?
Saying that Israel has no right to exist does not forward the debate – Israel does exist, and the only way it will cease to exist is if the Palestinians literally “push the Jews into the sea.” The only way I see this happening is with a full-scale massacre of 4 million people. Also, this was the subject of a lengthy thread last month and I’m not even going back there.
Now, what do I want? I want peace in the area. I want Palestinian children to be able to grow up without fear of getting shot. I want Israeli children to grow up without the fear of getting suicide-bombed.
Realistically, I cannot see this happening for many years. There are a lot of sticking points – Temple Mount, settlers, and refugees. But, both sides need to keep talking to resolve these, and get their respective people used to the ideas that they can’t have everything. The Jews will have to live with an international Old City and few (or no) settlements in Palestine. The Palestinians cannot deny Jews the right to visit their holy sites. They cannot expect Israel to just vanish. This is why I support a left-wing government. While I am against West Bank settlements, I understand that Barak has to live with them in order to keep a mandate. And I want Barak to lead the country, not Ariel “Sabra and Shatila” Sharon.
Now, my Israeli bias speaks. The Palestinians have a long road in front of them in order to become legitimate negotiators for peace. They have yet to control terror organizations in their populace, despite promises to do so. They have yet to fully accept the right of Israel to exist (I believe the line about the abolition of Israel is still in the PLO charter, I’ll find a cite). Of course they have a right to land and self-governance. But, they need to be able to accept some compromises. Israel will not be able to take 1 million refugees back. Israel will exist in 50 years. The Jews will not be pushed into the sea. Israel will not just vanish.
This is the heart of my worries. I believe that the Palestinians are not just fighting a war of independence. They are fighting a war of extermination. Their goal is not for a free Palestine. The best route to that is mutual compromise and diplomacy. Israel has been itching to get out of most of the West Bank since 1993 (New Republic last month). Sometimes I feel Palestinians want to abolish the Jewish presence in the Middle East. If it takes a full-scale massacre of 4 million, then they’ll do it. They cannot accept a Jewish state and therefore the Israeli attempt to compromise turns into a Palestinian attempt to whittle away at Israel to make it more insecure. The only evidence I have is Arafat’s stand towards Jerusalem and towards the refugees – no compromise, no middle ground. Israel takes back 1 million refugees (impossible, frankly) and Israel leaves the Old City (back to the days of donkey shit on the Western Wall). Barak has extended the olive branch farther than anyone before him, and Arafat slapped it away.
So sue me if I trust the only true democracy in the region more than a fledgling verging-on-the-edge-of-dictatorship run by an infirm man who has possibly lost the mandate of his own people.
cmkeller: I do not condone the acts of King Hussein nor do I support him or his son. But at the same time, Hussein didn’t forcibly occupy the territory of neighboring countries for decades at a time, either. The twentieh-century history of the Middle East is nothing but the arbitrary division into protectorates to suit the needs of the imperialist powers in the region (primarily Britain and France, later the US). They all have their faults and shortcomings, Israel included. But pointing out the faults of the other countries in the region doesn’t make Israel’s faults any less horrific or any more palatable.
A thought struck me earlier this evening, and I’d like to ask this about your original challenge:
**
Are you saying here that if he was merely caught in the crossfire, then it’s inexcusable, but if someone was aiming for him, then his death was justifiable?
edwino: I certainly do not deny that there were Jews in Palestine long before 1948. Just like there were Jews in almost every country of the world. What made Palestine so special?
Yes, the pre-1948 occupants owned the land fair and square. But after the founding of the state of Israel the Palestinians were forced off the land they had owned just as long as the Jews in the region. What gave the Israeli Jews the right to do that?
And this argument about the Jews having nowhere to go. True, they may not have felt entirely comfortable with returning to their old homes, with all the memories there both tender and painful, but that doesn’t give them the right to go elsewhere and create another refugee problem.
One last thing. When I see Palestinians freely elected to seats in the Knesset and making serious bids for the high governmental posts without fear of repression or retaliation, and allowed to live where they please, not in areas little better than the bantustans of South Africa, then will I agree with you that Israel is closer to ‘true democracy’.
tradesilicon: It’s not like the children aren’t affected by the situation in Palestine as well. If they want to learn how to fight back at age ten, twelve, or fourteen, more power to them.
Tradesilicon…Much of what you say about children is due to the fact that the occupied territories have a ridiculously disproportionate amount of children 18 and under.
Edwino…I am really busy right now and cannot write back to you right now, but I those phrases in the quotation marks are Sailor’s words. I was addressing him with that entire paragraph and not you. I apologize for being so vague. It’s been a really long day.
Oh, I dunno. How bout that it was the traditional homeland of the Jews? That Jews had been praying facing towards Jerusalem for 2000 years of diaspora? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand lose my cunning…
What if Saudi Arabia was taken over by some non-Muslim group who gave pilgrims to Mecca and Medina a hard time. Do you think that 2000 years would make the true believers forget Mecca and Medina? Do you think that they would not want to fight to go to Mecca and Medina? If they had the opportunity to return (but it meant displacing the non-Muslim group) do you think they would hesitate?
Their homes were destroyed. Their families were gone. Whole villages were erased from the map. They were still hated. They could not go anywhere else. The prewar Jewish population of Poland was in the millions. The postwar population was in the single thousands. See above for why Palestine was attractive.
Lost you here. Aren’t we talking about a war of independence? Israeli Arabs are already elected to the Knesset. Barak depends on them for his coalition. Now, Barak needs them to maintain his mandate.
Last time I checked there were no Canadian representatives in the US senate. We are talking about an independent Palestine here, with self governance and self determination. I was born 100 miles from the Transkei – I can’t see how an artificial enclave without self-determination can be compared to a fully autonomous state.
Palestine will be as independent as Lebanon, Jordan, or Israel. Sure, they will at first depend on the Israelis for jobs while they build an economy. They will be aided by a booming tourist trade with Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, Nablus, Hebron, and access to the Dead Sea and nice hotels in Gaza. They will have access to the Mediterranean and a relatively intact infrastructure. All they need is a stable government.
From an Israeli perspective (which I don’t support fully) we are talking about forming an aggressive state on lands which were only occupied after a preemptive strike against mobilizing Arab powers in 1967. Without this land, Israel would most probably have fallen when attacked by 6 Arab states on the holiest day of the year in 1973. So, for the average Israeli, you have to convince him to trust his neighbors. You have to convince him that he can live in a peaceful coexistence with his neighbors, and that his neighbors won’t try to push him into the sea next week. As they see it, the Palestinians have done a pretty poor job at this, and it makes them nervous. So progress has to go slowly.
The fact remains, ediwno, that the emigrating Jews pushed the Palestinian Arabs out in order to form Israel. The appeal to emotion you set forth in your post doesn’t justify shoving aside a whole section of the population.
The UN partition scheme, it should be remembered, granted 55% of the land of Palestine to the Jews (and there were only 120,000 of them there by 1930), who were 30% of the population but owned only 6% of the land. A minority of the population was given the right to say “We are the ruling authority and we now own all this land.”
The Jews wanted to emigrate to Palestine, fine. (Herzl had previously considered other places, like Argentina, as likely candidates.) But it should have been with the goal of working side by side with the existing political and social structures instead of a wholesale replacement with their own.
This is not to blame the Jews entirely for the situation. We also have to look at who actually benefited from the displacement of the Palestinians and the creation of Israel in the first place. I don’t want to go into it here in too much detail, as I would like to keep my posts of some readable length, but I will refer you to my quote about who Israel gets military and economic aid from in one of my previous posts.
It’s interesting how these things work on different levels for different people. You’re all having this academic debate, while I’m sitting around waiting to see whether there’ll be a general mobilization of reserve forces, and I’ll have to fly back home.
That’s the thing when you’re directly involved in the subject of a Great Debate. I’ve been staying out of this one because, frankly, I don’t really care what anyone thinks of my country, but remember - an academic debate is not always quite academic to those involved.
That’s it. I’m really too distraught about what happened in Lebanon to really right more. I think, thought, that we should all come together and lift a little prayer to Whoever that this mess doesn’t get any worse.
It doesn’t matter! Please read my past posts. The “legitimacy” of Israel is irrelevant to the discussion. Even if I were to agree that the Jews were an occupying force whose only claim on the land was as military victors (which I am not going to do) it still does not change any of my arguments. I argue that the Jews are there. They aren’t going to leave, even if the entire rest of the world says that they are not there legitimately.
I could argue against this “legitimacy” crap. I could tell you the demography of Israel has changed many, many, many times over the past 3000 years. I could tell you that the whites of South Africa have a legitimate right to be there, as do the blacks. Albanian Muslims have a legitimate right to be in Kosovo. But it wouldn’t change anything.
Today, there are 4 million Jews in Israel. Today, there are many million Palestinians there. The Jews live there. The Palestinians live there. Now, how do we make sure that they can both continue to do so without war?
You can’t have it both ways. Either you continue to argue that for the Palestinians because the Jews have no right to be there, or you put forth a legitimate argument about how peace should be made. You can argue the Jews should go back to Europe. They won’t, in the real world. Israel is their home. So, your argument about Jewish return to Europe turns into little more IMHO than a veiled support of a war of extermination against the Jews. Either you can debate about a legitimate peace plan, or you can argue that the Jews need to be pushed into the sea.
I myself have never argued that the Jews should return to Europe. As a matter of fact, one exact quote of mine was “If the Jews wanted to emigrate to Palestine, fine.” My argument is with the way they have conducted themselves once they got there.
I don’t know if your last post was more general argument or specifically directed at me, but if you’re implying somehow that I support in any way, shape, form, or manner the extermination or annihilation of the Jews, I shall in all seriousness have to ask you to step outside. The Holocaust was a horror that could have been prevented and should never be repeated, and I don’t know how else to drive that point home than to say it as I have here.
Yes he did, if the West Bank and Gaza (okay, Gaza was Nasser rather than Hussein) is rightfully Palestinian territory.
But if certain concessions or actions (or inactions) are expected of Israel due to actions in Israel’s past that have analogs in the pasts of other nations, then the failure to call upon those other nations to engage in actions similar to those demanded of Israel is relevant. It either means that the action is not so horrific, in which case, demanding such actions of Israel is wrong, or it means that such actions are not warranted as payment for such horrors, which also makes the demands on Israel wrong.
No, I’m saying that if he was merely caught in the crossfire, the actions don’t require an excuse (since it was an accident), and the shooter not being punished doesn’t indicate a societal tolerance for such a shooting, and only if someone was aiming for the kid could it be considered an action that, if not punished by the shooter’s society, can be said to be “tolerated” by that society.
My last post was not a personal attack. Rereading it, I can see how it may have been taken that way. I apologize. Rather, as you suggested, it was a general attack.
I do still feel, however, that a peace plan based in reality is what is needed. I also feel that the “fact” that Israel is not a “legitimate” state for whatever reason is about as moot of a point as we can get in the debate. I don’t believe Israel should be held to concessions due to the “fact” that Jews have no right to be in Israel. I mean, weren’t Abraham and Jacob an invading force from Persia? (sarcasm intended)
I maintain one cannot be a partner to peace until one recognizes the legitimacy of your adversary. This is what I think Barak was trying to say today. I think the state of Israel feels very wary about giving up the Western Wall to a group of people who consistently refuse to recognize any type of Jewish connection whatsoever to the Old City of Jerusalem, and indeed the entire region. Comments?
One new point of discussion (new thread here)? I maintain that Israel’s actions against the violent uprising are not excessive, given the fact that these uprisings are less than 10 miles away from almost every house in Israel. This place is small. My relatives live in Ra’anana, which is about 1 mile from the sea and about 3 miles from Kalkiliya, an Israeli Arab town on the pre-1967 border. When there is violence in the West Bank, sometimes you can hear it at the beach.
honestly, those rock throwers are nothing but primates! i can see it if this “civil war” was more organised and more civil. this doesn’t exclude the offense with their guns drawn and ready to shoot up anything with arms. IT DOESN’T TAKE A MAN TO PULL A TRIGGER! it’s a primitive instinct that empowers somebody WITH a gun to take another life. also, did we forget that holy land should be kept holy? whatever happened to religious tolerance? please people! nay, please neandrothols! this violence in the mid east is a baby’s tantrum. “ooooohhh, one side blames the other and so does the other!” maybe they should be put in their corners or sent to their rooms to think about what actions they are taking. why risk killing more people for revenge?
Especially given what happened to the Old City between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan controlled it. Every Jewish synagouge was destroyed, Jewish cemetaries were desecrated and Jews were not allowed to visit the Kotel. I don’t think Jews will trust the Palestinians to always allow access to Jewish holy sites. They are (rigthly) afraid that if Arafat controls the Old City, Jews will eventually be cut off from their holy sites.
To this day, Palastinian textbooks printed within the last 12 months preach the destruction of the Jewish state to schoolchildren. These are textbooks printed with foreign-aid money the Palastinian’s received from the United States.
(No, I do not have a cite. Yet. I will have it tomorrow.)
To call Arafat merely duplicitious is a kindness. He simply can’t be trusted.
sdimbert, looking at it from the other side, how do Palestinians fare under Israeli rule? Do they have access to the sites they want to visit, etc? I don’t have any info on this one way or the other, just curious.