Could a stranger, nervous of offending, ask why Sharon’s visiting the Haram-al-Sharif compound is considered a provocation worthy of riot by the Palestinians?
sdimbert, if those quotes are accurate, they are extremely damning, and scary to say the least. It sounds like we can look forward to at least another generation of hatred, at least from the Palestinian side.
Can anyone rebutt this? Say it ain’t so!
PeeQueue
PeeQueue, I am not familiar with those school teachings, but I do know that the Palestinian people (or at least their leadership) has not renounced their old goal of ‘driving the Jews into the sea’, even while trying to negotiate with Israel.
I’m afraid not. It is true.
It’s akin to a situation like this:
I have a neighbor, Bill Bully. Bill Bully has wanted to kill me for years. With the help of God and some friends here on earth, I’ve been able to survive despite his attempts to kill me. Yet, during the years he’s been trying to kill me, he’s done the following things:
[ul]
[li]He’s put up a huge sign on their front yard, for all the world to see saying “We hate Zev Steinhardt and it is our stated purpose in life to kill him.”[/li]
[li]He’s taught his kids, little Bob, Barbara and Brandon Bully to think of me as a devil who must be killed to liberate the neighborhood from me.[/li]
[li]He’s enlisted aid from many of the other neighbors to have me killed.[/li][/ul]
Now, however, perhaps because I’m tired of fighting the Bullys, or because my other friends want me to stop fighting them, I go to them and offer to stop the fighting if I give them part of my yard. All they have to do, I tell them, is to stop fighting me, stop telling your kids that I am the devil and take down the sign saying you want to kill me.
Well, Bill Bully, agrees to meet me. However, as he’s talking “peace” with me, he’s still has his kids yelling out the windows toward my house that they’re going to kill me, he’s still got the huge sign up, and he’s still privately telling his kids and friends that I’m still to be killed.
Zev Steinhardt
I have a problem with this whole line of assumption.
It was not the kid’s fault he got shot. Not in any I can think of. But making the gun carrying Palestinians into folk heroes because of the valliant struggle is sheer bullshit.
The two concepts of fighting for one’s freedom and responsibility for the lives of innocents just don’t seem to reconcile here.
Lets go all out and grant that the current Israeli government is an evil fascist power and does nothing but shit all over the poor members of the Palestinean community. Ok, then you could indeed state that they were “freedom fighters” and entitled to take up arms against an opressive government. But even with that stipulated they are responsible for the times and methods they choose to effect their freedom and release from dictatorship.
Even if we can justify the struggly, that does not make them free of responsibility for innocent lives lost.
Car and bus bombs in marketplaces as well as attacks on Israeli forces in populated areas (usually areas in which many of their own people reside) are choices they make in a calculated effort to both scare the Israeli people and get the attention of the world media. When a Palestenian dies as the result of conflict the first assumption by the guilty mass is that those in power are responsible and those who initiate the conflict with violent tactics are exonerated in the public eye. Contrawise when a bombing upon Israeli citizens happens great care is take to make sure everyone knows that this is the action of a small few extremists.
The simple fact is that it is just a few people who make this happen but those few are responsible for death in their own communities as well. We just love to pick on those in power. Same thing with the Contras and the Sandinistas, the Contras were in power so they must have been evil. Guess what, both regiemes were psychotic killers but the popular assumption was and has been against those in power. David vs Goliath.
The big picture is this. Israel=little tiny country that depends on foreign aid from the US in order to exist. Also surrounded by people who have sworn to exterminate them at any cost.
It is very easay to fight with chivalry as a guideline when things are even, but when you are outnumbered by more than ten to one you need to be a mean son of a bitch to survive. Personally I’m surprised they just don’t bomb the west bank until it glows and then build a mall there. May not be the kind way, but they are taking a lot of crap that they don’t have to in the name of peace and still getting bushwhacked on a regular basis.
Remember during the Rodney King riots in LA and elsewhere, people made note that while there was good reason for upset. All that seemed to be happening was people burning their own neighborhoods down and using legitimate issues as an excust to behave like animals.
What good is it to win freedom for your people if you get them all killed in the process?
zen101
D.F.A.
It was not his going there, but his manner of going there. He all but forced his way in there, with armed guards. Now, as I am sure he is not on the top 100 people popular with Palestinians, I can understand him not wanting to go there without protection, I can also understand how Muslims would feel he had desecrated such a holy site by bringing weapons there.
He knew it was a provocation to go there with armed guards, but did so anyway. The next day, Palestinians retaliated by throwing stones at Jews praying at the Western Wall. Israelis retaliated by shooting at the demonstrators. Palestinians retaliated by shooting back at the Israelis.
checks back in
First of all, if you read my previous posts in this thread, you will see that in no way do I side with the Palestinians in what they are doing.
The problem with preaching that the Palestinians are a bunch of fundamentalist non-thinkers is that this can equally be argued about segments of the Israeli population. The Ultra-Orthodox and Ultra-Nationalistic parts of the Israeli government like Moledet and the bunch have equal and opposite mentalities as the most fundamentalist Palestinians who deny that there was ever a Jewish temple on Temple Mount.
For instance, when I went on a trip to Israel with Betar, the youth group of the Likud party, I often heard the cry of “shtei godot ha-Yarden”, or both banks of the Jordan River. As in, when Abraham was given the Promised Land by God, he was promised both banks of the Jordan River, so by gum, that’s what we want. Add that to recent Moledet rallies with the supporters screaming “Death to the Arabs” and throwing stones at Israeli Arabs.
So, pointing fingers at Palestinians as being overly fundamentalist is sometimes the pot calling the kettle black. The difference, as I see it is that
- The Israeli government can usually control the Jewish populace and prevent it from large-scale rioting and destruction.
- The prevailing Israeli government is farther away from these viewpoints than the prevailing Palestinian Authority government.
- The “fundamentalist” Jews or what have you are less likely to resort to terror campaigns in order to bring attention to their goals (one or two isolated incidents perhaps).
OK, back to the story at hand.
The Jerusalem Issue, as I see it, is unresolvable. The Israelis rightfully are distrustful of the Palestinians when it comes to control of holy sites. See 1948-1967 Old City Jerusalem and the recent events in Nablus as examples. I fully believe that, if given the opportunity, Palestinians will gladly go at the Western Wall with pick axes and crowbars. The Palestinians assert that they need control over Haram-al-Sharif, which is within 100 meters of the Western Wall.
That being said, the Jews I believe can live without control over the Al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock complex on Temple Mount. Traditionally, Jews are not encouraged to walk around there because it is thought that underneath all of this lies the Holy of Holies of the Temple. In the days of the Temple, the Holy of Holies was off-limits to everyone except the top Jewish priest, and that only on Yom Kippur. Not knowing where it is exactly, accidentaly trespassing over it would defile it. At least that’s how I’ve heard it told.
Anyway, that still doesn’t make the issue resolvable. The Old City is not the place to stick a border through – that is totally unworkable, as it is really, really tiny. Neither side will accept international control. Neither side will accept opposing sovereignty over the region.
So what are you going to do? It is an argument the Palestinians can’t win. Israel will happily give them all of the West Bank that they want, except I feel the Old City of Jerusalem. But, Arafat does not possess the mandate to compromise on Jerusalem. He claims that a billion Muslims depend on him to get Jerusalem. That is a poor claim – if he really cared about his people, then having a state and starting to build a place for the Palestinians in the world should be more important than the needs of a billion Muslims. The more likely case is that since he is in such a poor position of control, he fears for his own head if he compromises on Jerusalem.
This is not to say that the Palestinians don’t have a legitimate right to the Temple Mount – it is just to say that the only way they are ever gonna get it back is if they kick the Israelis out militarily. And I have a feeling that the only way the Israelis will lose that militarily is if they lose absolutely everything else. We are talking about the holiest site in Judaism here. I have a feeling a lot of people would gladly give up their lives for that 100 square meters of real estate.
Shodan.
It also wasn’t a contigent of armed guards. It was close to 1000 soldiers fully armed and outfitted while displaying their arms openly.
From what I hear, Barak is really really really pissed because he’s in an even tighter jam now than he was before, if that could be possible 
:rolleyes:
Facts, please. Facts.
First of all, soldiers are a fact of life in Jerusalem. In all of Israel, as a matter of fact. I have sat on Jerusalem busses while a “fully armed solder openly displaying his arms” slept on my shoulder.
Don’t use rhetoric please; facts.
Secondly, my search of the articles posted on CNN’s webstite concerning Sharon’s visit turned up no mention of a compliment of “close to 1000 soldiers fully armed and outfitted while displaying their arms openly.”
I checked the following articles:
[ul]
[li]Sept. 29[/li][li]Sept. 29[/li][li]Sept. 29[/li][li]Sept. 28[/li][/ul]
Please either substantiate your assertion or retract it.
Aside :
Last time I was in Israel, I got off the plane at 3 AM after traveling 36 hours through Amsterdam from Houston. At 7 AM, I was on a bus to Be’ersheva with my girlfriend who was studying there. I kept falling asleep on the shoulder of the “fully armed soldier openly displaying his arms” while my girlfriend (now wife) pulled my head straight.
To move to new ground :
This morning, I woke to read the news about 2 Israeli soldiers being killed in (or around) a Palestinian police station. Allegedly, an angry mob broke through the police guards. It doesn’t make matters any better to state that the police weren’t involved directly.
This is a clear example that Arafat has no mandate to negotiate peace. He cannot control his own population, and it is possible that the population is more powerful than his armed police force. He does not speak for the whole Palestinian people – there is obviously a large and strong contingent (at least large enough to break into a police station) who doesn’t want to negotiate peace, and who want to kill every Israeli that they can find.
This morning, a US destroyer was attacked in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. 4 US soldiers were killed. Apparently, a rubber boat filled with explosives was aimed/steered at the ship.
Yemen has been the site of daily pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli demonstrations, and the president recently called for an Arab war against Israel.
Nice.
I know heard a pullback from the rubber boat story, and something about a service boat blowing up.
Regarding the Sharon visit, I did hear a bit about this on ABC when Barak was interviewed, and I’m not sure if it was Barak who said it, but the Sharon visit was pre-arranged with Palestinian security. How can you have a ‘security’ firce which is operating so poorly? Granted they have not had much time and experience at it, but if you are fighting for self-determination you must have some self control, IMO.
Zev - regarding your analogy with Bill Bully, I think you left out part of the story - Bill claims that the way you came to live in your house and yard was not all together Kosher. He also claims that you are the Bully. Not taking sides, just presenting the other point of view. (I know this can be an entirely new debate, which has been done, just fell like it should be added).
Complete aside: as far as I can recall, there are armed soldiers everywhere in Israel, and no one seems to have any problem with it. I have stopped to give a soldier a ride, and his machine gun was in his lap the whole time. Just seemed OK. Also, when we went to the Mosque (at the ‘Dome of the Rock’?) we had an entire group of Jews entering without any problems. What’s going on these days?
[GETTING ON SOAPBOX]
tradescillion,
What’s “going on” is that some of the Palestinians are underhandedly preying on the natural inclination decent world citizens have to believe in the rights of the underdog.
No news reports of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount included the fact that he saw piles of stones there, obviously stockpiled in advance of some sort of attack on the Kotel site, did they?
Did those news reports include the fact that Sharon was accompanied by other MK’s who are, as of now, not charged with “provocation”?
How about these facts?
[ul]
[li]The Thursday before Sharon’s visit, an Israeli Border Patrol soldier was murdered by a double roadside bomb inside if Israel, an unprovoked act of violence we had not seen in years.[/li][li]The next morning (before Sharon’s ascent to the Mount) a Palestinian policeman, on a joint patrol with an Israeli partner, pulled his automatic rifle on his partner murdering him and then wounded another Israeli policeman.[/li][li]After Sharon left, the Imam in the El Aksa mosque on the Mount whipped the congregation (about 2 thousand worshipers) into a frenzy repeating the “new Palestinian truth” that the Israelis have secret plans to take over[/li]the mount and destroy the mosques there and that Sharon represented their scout. The Moslem sermon on the Temple Mount today included the following supplications: “We want the battle against the enemy to be orderly. We want dead amidst the enemy. We want to kill and not be killed. We must fight guerrilla warfare.” Thus the violence started as
the crowds surged out after their prayers and began throwing the awaiting boulders over the wall and surging into the Old City to take over and burn an Israeli police station there, severely injuring a number of policeman who did not shoot into the crowds.
[li]Last week, in an incredibly well-planned attack, Hizbullah forces crashed the Lebanese-border fence, drew a[/li]small patrol to the fence break with fire and then kidnaped 3 soldiers who were whisked away in a civilian automobile.
[li]When the BBC asked Arafat if he truly had the power to stop the mob violence, he said that it probably could not[/li]be done without exerting fatal force on the rioters. The logical follow-up question was not asked: “Then how do you expectthe Israeli forces to stop this violence without using fatal force?” That question has never been probed in any media report I have seen.
[/ul]
[CLIMBING OFF SOAPBOX]
I am sorry to rant and rave, but the current situation turns my stomach. It hurts me to see the Israelis painted in so poor a light, and it hurts me to see most Americans duped by such a clumsy propaganda campaign.
Please do not roll your eyes at me. If anything it is tacky. You could politely ask me for the cite. The cite for the soldiers was from the times. They aren’t letting me access their back issues… According to them the vast majority of the soldiers lined the access routes to the site in full view of everyone around it while a small number went into the site with Sharon.
You know fully well that the presence of arms at holy sites is a touchy issue especially when it’s this particular site. There is a clear difference between your bus example and the soldiers at the Temple Mount. That’s not rhetoric. That’s facts.
The Big Bully analogy was inflammatory rhetoric and I don’t see you objecting to that!?!
This analogy is probably the poorest I have ever heard on this board.
How much of a bully can the Palestinians be when of the 97 deaths in the past two weeks, 90 of them have been Palestinian Arabs??? That cite by the way is today’s New York Times. Read it while you can
It is simplistic and could easily be applied in a vice versa manner. Despite the fact that it would probably be more apt when turned about (due to the fact that Israel is an established/fully functional state), IMHO it would be as just as simplistic.
Seriously! We are discussing world politics using Big Bully analogies?!?!?!
The problem with these discussion is that virtually no one here (with the possible exception of edwino) is willing to do either of two things: Criticize themselves and Israel (or Palestine if you happen to be Palestinian, but methinks there aren’t many on this board) and, more importantly, put themselves in each other’s shoes.
For instance, the Occupied Territories are not a nice place to live. Poor health care, inadequate housing, crappy sanitation (pun fully intended), etc. Much of this is due to Israel’s interaction with and control over these areas. Why does no one on these boards criticize Israel for this or at least analyze why Israel deems it to be necessary?
On the other hand why does no one on the Palestinian side attempt to realize that Jews have been historically shat upon and much of their current attitude is justifiably due to this (i.e. it’s not paranoia if people are really trying to get you).
arrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhh! This is so frustrating!!!
Turn about is fair play.
Let’s not be hypocrites so sdimbert can I please have the cites for that litany of facts?
Grendel69,
In no particular order:
The “occupied terretories” are no longer occupied. That is a term rendered obselete by Oslo. Those areas are now governed by the PA. If the toilet backs up, it is their problem, not the Israeli government’s.
Zev’s Big Bully analogy is not inflammatory; it is accurate. If you feel otherwise, please explain.
I knew you would ask me to back up the assertions I made from atop my soapbox. The problem is that, as I explained, not one of those events were reported in the general media. I can’t provide proof that something wasn’t reported!
My source is an email I received from an Jewish Israeli. Take it or leave it. If you doubt his word, fine. Then I retract the statements.
Either way, a Times article about “a thousand soldiers” should be easier to find. It it is not online, send me the date and page number and I will look at in IRL.
I reiterate, back it up or retract it.
[Edited by TubaDiva on 10-12-2000 at 12:38 PM]
**
Inflamatory rhetoric? Hardly. The analogy is accurate. I’ll even spell it out for you:
What’s so inflammatory about this? The Arab countries have been trying to get rid of Israel for years. With help from God (and financial and military aid from the U.S.), Israel has been able to fend off the Arab countries in war after war after war after war.
The Palestinial charter clearly stated that their goal was to “liberate Palestine (read: destroy Israel).”
Palestinial schoolbooks teach that Israel is the “Zionist Entity” that must be destroyed. Zionism is considered a form of Nazism and Fascism. Children are taught that the highest honor they can attain is to be a martyr to the Palestinian cause.
The Palestinians have enlisted aid from the other Arab countries. In addition, they were supplied, for many years, by the Soviets.
This is what happened. Israel (for whatever reason) extended a hand to the PLO. All they had to do was agree to peace, stop the antisemitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric and repeal the portions of the Palestinian charter that called for Israel’s destruction.
Arafat still says he wants peace. However, he hasn’t moved one iota off of his original position, he still has anitsemitic material being broadcast on the PNA’s TV/Radio stations, still teaches schoolchildren to hate and (maybe) still has the items in the PLO charter (I haven’t been able to find an “updated” version of the charter on the PNA website, even though I found the original.)
Back to you:
Because Arafat incites his people to violence. He knows they are no match for the Israeli army. Arafat is minting martyrs.
Zev Steinhardt
It cannot have been accidental. From the published pictures (I didn’t see the film footage) the boy was sitting in a corner, half hidden by his father. Even in crossfire, you don’t “accidentally” shoot someone >in a corner< if you aim at people shooting with guns somewhere else.
Incidentally, the medic coming to their aid also was shot dead - if the first shooting was acccidental, I would expect both sides to respect red cross/red halfmoon/red David star - at least most of the time. Taken together, there is little doubt the shooting of the boy - and the father - and the medic - was intended.
By the way, I have been reading the online version of the Haaretz http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/1_1.htm, which gives mostly impassioned comments and analysis of the events . They found that the israelic defence force often has their statement out very fast and so nearly always gets cited, but the statements are often enough incomplete - in a systematic way…
I have changed my opinion of the situation in Israel/palestine in the last weeks due to an isrealic newspaper.
The more I learn about the conflict the more I find myself sympathising with Israel. As has been said, there is a general tendency to side with the underdog but come on, enough is enough. The Palestinians are the ones always wanting violence and when they get it they complain. The keep getting their asses whooped and they keep comming back for more. What’s their complaint? They are the ones choosing violence. Maybe they should learn that the prefect is the enemy of the good and that a bad peace is better than a good war (especially if you keep loosing). They are no more than an unruly mob.
Note: this is just my personal opinion with no attempt to cast any useful information on the subject being discussed.
[note: I have published the following a few days ago in alt-fan.cecil-adams in the string “The good, the bad, and the ugly”.
I corrected or clarified a few remarks without notice.]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the last 2 or 3 weeks I found the Haaretz daily
http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/1_1.htm
very interesting reading.
While articles speculating on Arafats aims and mean were quite mixed -
and mostly suspicious of him - the tenor of most comments was that the
Arabs - not only in the occupied territories but also those “within the
green line” have never been treated fairly - they have remained citizens
second class legally and factually. At the same time they stated that
most of them probably have had resigned to the facts and possibly would
prefer Israel to palestine - for economic reasons.
So I think the basis for a peaceful neighborship of jews and arabs could
easily have been created - and, yes, we all know that there are
extremists on both sides who never will agree to something like that.
However, equal treatment never has been estabished, it seems:
-
expropriations in Israel almost always seem to be done to arabs - and
often enough, these lands end up in jewish hands. -
WHen the ultraorthodox riot and throw stones, the police may fire
smoke grenades or use water hoses. When the palestines riot and throw
stones [added: or the israelic arabs], the IDF (israel defense force, I suppose) fires rubber bullets,
and occaisionally live bullets when the rubber bullets run out - or
perhaps when the rubber bullets “run out” - I’m getting more and more
suspicious over the official positions.
Rubber bullets are supposed to be not deadly when fired at the legs -
however, most of the palestine victims and “victims” have been hit on
head and torso - accounting for the 3000 wounded and 80+ dead.
I grant the IDF forces that they are not the police and that they follow
orders - but are these orders to fire at head and torso (somehow I doubt
there is a written order of this content)? -
In Nazareth, the reports are confused. According to one article in the
Haaretz, however, a group of young jewish people started rioting,
attacking arab shops. When the police was called, they shoved the jewish
rioters away and then started shooting into the arabs which were in (a)
dead-end street - conclusion: defending themselves against the jewish
rioters. Here, israelic arabs - citizens of Israel, after all - were
treated the same way as the palestines. -
The israelic arabs also are effectively hindered from getting grants
and economic helps for building homes. In Jerusalem, quarters where jews
live are kept up much better then arab quarters. street repair, sewers,
water, electricity, telephone etc. are neglected; jewish quarters get
three times as much money per person. -
The Haaretz also stated that the IDF were also very quick getting
their official statements to the press. In some cases, there were clear
discrepancies with eyewitness reports, like single shots and volleys
fired from a jewish settlement into a demonstration which have bben left
out in their report. - In the general press, the IDF reports were
brought but - possibly due to the heated atmoshere? - no “neutral”
reports, resulting in, to put it plainly, misinformation of the israelic
public.
Does this mean that the IDF put a not-so-subtle spin an the news “from
the front”? I think the answer is yes. Whatever the reasons they do it,
they should be aware of the consequences - and of the possible
consequences if the public in Israel ever gets aware of this.
Lets face it: I always had thought that Israel was/is a democratic
country. I’m not so sure of that any more. It rather looks like a
religous state with democratic features. This is due to a large part to
the circumstances of the creation of the israelic state - especially
Zionists from Europe who wanted a jewish state after the second world
war with all its gruesome facts - , with the surrounding arabs extremely
hostile (to state it mildly). This all is a large backpack for anyone to
carry - but now Israel is tired of the continuous warfare, and the
palestines probably too. However, if I were a palestine I probably would
go on throwing rocks under the circumstances described above;
humiliation does work that way.
The Jews in Israel pride themselves of not submitting to force, but
somehow “they” (how I hate this generalization) fail to apply the same
to the palestines.
The israelic state cannot kill or drive off all arabs. So either they
have to live with them peacefully (and the palestines peacefully with
them) or live with continuous or cyclic intifada.
If and how Arafat fits into this I don’t know. If he is willing or not,
if he is fully in power or not, roll your dice. However, he is the only
one they can negotiate with if they still >want< to negotiate. And I
suspect that an equal treatment of at least the israelic arabs - or a
serious attempt - will go a long way with the israelic arabs and even
the palestines - because it will give them hope again, something in very
short supply just now. So if the israelic state gives back the land to
the arabs where possible and makes restitution. A lot of these measures
would be possible without violating security or even risking the safety
of the israelic state - although in the long run it will be the end of
the jewish state, according to the demographic figures; the arab
population grows faster. Really ? - everywhere in the world there is a
correlation between poverty, education (especially of the women), and
population growth. So if the arabs are treated fairly economically and
have the same chances, their population ultimately will have the same
growth rate as the jewish population. Somehow that sounds safer to me
than an impoverished, humiliated arab population, partially in the same
state, partially in annexed territories, and partially in the
neighboring countries. The longer the jews wait, the more unfavorable
the demographics will become.
So the israelis - jewish israelis - will have to decide between a secular state
which treats all its citizens equally, or a basically religiously based
state surrounded by hostile people with different religions, with
continuous low-level conflicts and the occasional war. In the long run,
I don’t see a third solution short of annihilation of either most jews
or most palestines.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I should add to the text abovethat for me the decisive point in changing my opinion from pro-israeli to not-quite-pro-palestinian is the treatment of the israelic arabs in israel by the israelis, >not< the treatment of the palestinians on the westbanks.
Both historically and presently, both sides have much to answer for. Both sides claim the moral high ground. In the western press, the israelic state has been more successful to cover it, since Israel is viewed as a democracy, and the palestinians as not.
While historically [meaning from 1948 until at least 1973, possibly until 1982 (? until Invasion of southern lebanon - I’m not sure when this happened)] the israelis did have the moral high ground against the palestines, they have slid back step for step since then and have largely lost it today. In my eyes, however, they have no excuse for their treatment of the israelic arabs from early on - not if they consider themselves a democracy.