America's own 'rogue state'

America's own 'rogue state'

By DAVID HIRST
Special to The Japan Times

BEIRUT -- Since the Taliban's defeat in Afghanistan, the United States has been focusing on that long-standing "rogue state" and newly anointed member of the "axis of evil," President Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as the next target of its "war on terror."
The trouble is that it has encountered a second "rogue state" that is all but ruining its prospects of dealing with the first. Of course, the U.S. never calls or perhaps even thinks of it as such, because the state in question is Israel, than which it has no closer ally or more indulged of proteges. But such, in effect, it is.

There has never been a precise definition of what has been variously termed the "rogue," "backlash," "outlaw" or "crazy" state. In practice, it is likely to be an oppressive dictatorship, but that alone has not been sufficient qualification. It must also pose a constant, exceptional threat to the existing order, allying an aggressive nature with the acquisition of disproportionate military power and the development of weapons of mass destruction. And it must be an adversary of the U.S., since it was the U.S. that developed the concept and determined those to whom it applies.

Israel does not possess this last qualification, but its pride of place in American affections enables it to possess the others in greater abundance.

As the Jewish state, it may not oppress its Jewish citizens, but as a colonial settler-state, it is a direct or indirect oppressor of the indigenous Arabs it rules over or has displaced. To cope with that, it has become a vastly disproportionate military power, both conventional and unconventional, a permanent source of regional disorder, the object of ever-growing international opprobrium -- and poses a far more enduring threat to U.S. interests, and potentially no less calamitous, than any posed by Hussein or the other officially designated "rogue states" of the region, Syria, Libya and Iran.

That threat, implicitly at least, was the reason why U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell just spent 10 days in the region. His immediate purpose was to secure a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian fighting and a restoration of the peace process. But it was more than just the fighting that drove the Bush administration to re-engage in a conflict from which it had deliberately disengaged; it was the impact the conflict was having on the Arab world and U.S. standing. That is what Powell was getting at when, with infinite tact, he told Israel, "as a friend," that "we have to take note of the long-term strategic consequences" of its action.

The consequences are indeed becoming ominous: anti-Americanism at fever pitch from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf; a renewed, dramatic stirring of the Arab "street," which American policymakers had tended to dismiss as a paper tiger; distress signals from key American allies, Jordan and Egypt, whose leaders fear that if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and all he stands for, goes unchecked, their regimes risk collapse, along with the whole structure of peace with Israel; threats by Hezbollah, with its cross-border assaults, to ignite a regional war; Iraq's stoppage of exports, raising the price of oil by a dollar in a political and economic climate where further turbulence could send it soaring; manifest impatience of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah.

On the one hand Israel, the Jewish state, always successfully presented itself as both an embodiment of American ideals -- "bastion of democracy in the Middle East" -- and as a strategic asset and defender of American interests in the region. The success grew mainly out of the extraordinary influence that, via its friends and auxiliaries in key American institutions, the administration, Congress and the media, Israel exerted on U.S. policy. Before Israel came into being, U.S. President Harry Truman famously told assembled Arab ambassadors: "I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents." Ever since, American politicians have indefatigably vied for Israel's favor.

On the other hand Israel, the colonial enterprise, was bound to be a strategic liability -- not an asset -- for any outside power perceived by the Arabs to be aiding and abetting it. The U.S., or at least its specialized agencies like the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon with their professional grasp of realities on the ground, has always known this.

As Truman was pinning his colors to the Zionist mast, the CIA was reporting that the Zionist leadership was "pursuing its objectives without regard for the consequences," thereby "endangering not only the Jews in Palestine but also the strategic interests of the Western powers." This was America's "rogue state" in embryo.

Still, in those early days, the politicians, for all their pro-Israeli partisanship, could more readily share, and more forcefully act upon, the professionals' view of U.S. interests in the region. The most famous occasion -- an adumbration of the present crisis -- was when U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower enforced Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the Sinai, which it had invaded in the 1956 Suez war. Says Stephen Green in his book "Taking Sides," "a strong case can be made that Eisenhower was the last American president actually to make Middle East policy" rather than "Israel and the friends of Israel in America."

To be sure, the endemic conflict of interests has produced quarrels and tensions ever since, but somehow these were almost always resolved, or held in abeyance, and almost always to Israel's advantage. To be sure, Israel often put its own interest above America's, but America would unfailingly supply it with the means to go on doing so. It showered it with a continuous cornucopia of money, weapons and technology. This was supposed (1) to encourage it to be more flexible in American-sponsored peacemaking, yet only made it more intransigent, and (2) to bolster its role as an ally and defender of American interests, even though Israel itself was the main cause of any threat to them in the first place.

All the while, in that other center of Israeli power, Washington, successive administrations -- with the recent, ironic exception of Bush's father -- became ever more pro-Israeli, a process that reached its apogee with this one, replete as it is with rightwing ideologues who favor the Israel of Sharon.

The outcome of the Powell mission provides a startling illustration of the protege turning the tables on the patron, of the ability of America's very own "rogue state," now grown to full stature, to disrupt America's purposes through the exercise of military power and political power in Washington.

Powell had a mandate to ensure Israel's "immediate' withdrawal from Palestinian territories. That was what the higher U.S. interest required, and what his boss, President Bush, demanded. He went home without one -- indeed, without any discernible achievement whatever. In effect, the president had betrayed his own secretary of state. With the America's pro-Israeli forces in full cry -- with Sharon's envoy, his even more extreme political rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, invited by congressmen to attack American foreign policy from Capitol Hill itself -- his resolve evidently crumbled. A far cry from Eisenhower.

Few Arabs would disagree with Edward Abington, former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and now a consultant to the Palestine Authority, who says Powell had been playing for "tremendously high stakes" and that the consequences of his failure will "be extremely bad for the U.S."

The least that can be said is that, for the U.S., the question is no longer whether it can rein in Sharon so that it can strike Hussein. The game has moved on. It is more likely a question of whether -- as a columnist in Beirut's leading newspaper al-Nahar put it -- the U.S. can "protect its interests from the volcano of public anger in the region that which could erupt and sweep away regimes, rulers, clients, interests, investments, oil, values and policies."

David Hirst is the Middle East correspondent for the London Guardian. Based in Beirut, he has been covering the region for 30 years.

The Japan Times: April 28, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

[Senjojutsu]

To start I am also not enamored with Israel, they are not nor ever have been an America’s “ally” in the vein of the UK, Canada, or Australia - despite what the US liberal “Zionist controlled” national media keeps repeating.

I would ask all the members of the “Israel lobby” in the US Congress one question - which flag do you swear primary allegiance to?
Is it the Stars and Stripes OR the Star of David?

However after 09/11, some other realities come to mind:

Some statistics may help (Source: Central Intellegence Agency, 2001).

Bordering Nations

Lebanon: 4,015 sq mi 3,627,774 people, Muslim 70%, Christian 30%, Jewish <1%
Jordan: 35,637sq mi 5,153,378 people, Muslim 93%, Christian 6%, other <1%
Syria: 185,180 sq mi 1,691,008 people, Muslim 90%, Christian 10%, Jewish <1%
Egypt: 386,662 sq mi 69,536,644 people, Muslim 94%, Coptic Christian and other 6%

Total:
661,494 sq mi 80,008,804 people, Muslim 92%, Jewish <1%, other (non Jewish) >7%

Israel:
8,019 sq mi 5,958,093 people, Jewish 80%, Muslim 15%, other religions 5%.



If someone tells you the Israelis do not have the right to aggressively defend themselves, ask him why?
When he is in the middle of his explanation, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
When he gets up mad, apologize, and remind him that he should not become aggressive and retaliatory.

Then of course there is the question of Islam, the religion of peace as “W” keeps repeating.

I have enclosed the following news wire (below) from Saudi Arabia just for some perspective.

My final opinion, if the Jews and Arabs cannot live in peace in Jerusalem, give it back to the Christians to control !!:smilejapa

===================================================
Saudi Telethon Host Calls for Enslaving Jewish Women
From the Saudi Information Service.
(WASHINGTON DC) April 26, 2002 …

The Saudi Information Agency has obtained a tape by prominent government official cleric Shaikh Saad Al-Buraik calling for enslaving Jewish women. The tape is called "a Monkey Desecrates Mosque," and was delivered in a Riyadh government mosque. The monkey refers to Jews. Al-Buraik, a Wahhabi cleric, is closely tied to Prince AbdulAziz Ben Fahd, the king's youngest son, and member of the Saudi delegation accompanying Crown Prince Abdullah on his current visit.

Al-Buraik was the host of the two-day long telethon raising funds for Palestinians, which raised $109 million. He is also the host of "Religion and Life," a program on government television Channel One and on MBC television owned by Prince AbdulAziz Ben Fahd. Al-Buraik said on the tape that the money raised would go to Palestinian fighters.

The following are excerpts of the tape:
On the situation in the Palestinian areas he said:

Oh Believer, it's a wish, as much as it is pains, but we have hopes that the situation in Palestine will explode. No one dies before their day. How many Muslims have died in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir, and Kosovo!! Is it too dear to us that among our honorable beloved die as martyrs? Their death dates were written before their birth. That they die as martyrs. "Say even if were at your home, those who will die will walk to their death." Which is a better choice, to de on your bed, or to die perseverant, fighting, not retreating. Which is better to suffer long before death many days, or taste death quickly?

Which is better to suffer a slow death, or die as a martyr in your way to heaven. A death that you will be forgiven on the first drop of your blood. When life became perishes we started to drink humiliation many times over. Oh Palestinian Authority, don't you see that you are tested once or twice a year? Then you don't learned or repent. Isn't time yet to wage jihad, and call for holy war. Isn't time that Muslim countries which normalized relations with the Jews to cancel everything that happened from Madrid to Oslo, and Why River, which forbids the supplying of weapons to Muslims in Palestine? The agreements which canceled jihad, and disassociation from non-Muslims, should all be demolished. It's a call to close all embassies opened for the Jews in the land of Islam; it is call to end normalization with Israel. What international resolution that the Jew respected, prepared by Christians.

On Jews and Christians he said:
People should know that Jews are backed by the Christians, and the battle that we are going through is not with Jews only, but also with those who believe that Allah is a third in a Trinity, and those who said that Jesus is the son of Allah, and Allah is Jesus, the son of Mary.

About America he said:
I am against America until this life ends, until the Day of Judgment; I am against America even if the stone liquefies. My hatred of America, if part of it was contained in the universe, it would collapse. She is the root of all evils, and wickedness on earth. Who else implanted the tyrants in our land, who else nurtured oppression? Oh Muslim Ummah don't take the Jews and Christians as allies.

Jewish women as slaves he says:
Muslim Brothers in Palestine, do not have any mercy neither compassion on the Jews, their blood, their money, their flesh. Their women are yours to take, legitimately. God made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women? Why don't you wage jihad? Why don't you pillage them?

end

[Shitoryu Dude]

To the atheist, all this talk about holy land and such is just a line of crap. Considering that none of the participants in this particular little fight are acting in a civilized manner, I vote that we just pull out and let them get done killing each other. When it's over we can drop a few nukes on the area as an object lesson.

Option #2 would be to make them all relocate to Baja California. With the absence of "holy sites" to get ticked off at each other about, they would most likely settle down and in a few weeks barely realize they had traded one worthless piece of real estate for another.

:beer:

[hawaiianvw67]

Alohas,

You're right, to the Atheist "Holy Land" is a pile of crap. However, Atheists have just as powerful dogma and doctrine driving their ambitions in this world as religious zealots. It would be irresponsible to downplay the situation as a bunch of crazy religious people arguing over barren land, and that is all. Afterall, people still die for religious beliefs, not for the Theory of Evolution...and it is the 21st century. Though, I agree, they are acting like idiots. Many sociologists in the 70's and 80's predicted that by the turn of the millenium, religion would be an extinct social institution. Hmmmm...

As for the whole thing about Israel having a right to defend themselves, yes they do. Yet, not with weapons that say "Made in U.S.A." on the side of them. Not many Americans realize that when we sell weapons to other countries, we include a clause that says, "you can only use these for defensive purposes, you can't invade or oppress other peoples with these. If you do, we won't sell you anymore weapons and we will quit supporting your gov't." Well...obviously we haven't done this with Israel, so you wonder why Islamic countries are pissed as hell? They see their kin being mowed down by machine guns manufactured here, and wonder why we keep giving the Israelis weapons. No, they are not an ally like the U.K., etc., however, we DO sell them massive amounts of weapons.

Another stupid thing about this whole conflict: The state of Israel, right now, the borders that it maintains...they are not the historical/ancient borders of the Kingdom of David. The land Israel occupies is technically the land of the Philistines, whom they never fully conquered. "Palestine" as we hear it from the media, where all the suicide-bombers come from, that is the ancient domain of Israel. So, if Israel wants their ancient homeland back, I say we give it to them. Let them take up residence in the arid wasteland that the PLO resides in, and let the PLO take over the productive coastal plains of ancient Philistia.

I don't know where I'm going with this...it just seems like a hot topic to discuss.

Oh yeah...another thing...I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but there are more Islamic Arab citizens of the U.S. than there are Jewish citizens in the U.S. So, apparently it doesn't matter who you have to answer to (like Truman said), maybe Jewish citizens in this country have something that Islamic citizens don't? Hmmmm.

[Shitoryu Dude]

What dogma and what doctrine?

Atheists are plentiful and by and large totally unorganized. Not even the various organizations or magazines that exist claim to speak for anything other than a very few people. There is no church or governing body of any sort - the only thing atheists have in common is the unwavering knowledge that all religions are basically myth - there is/are no god(s), nor are such things possible. The few religions that do contain some small fragment of historical fact have routinely distorted it to a degree that is bizzare. Simply put, the universe is a natural phenomenon. I don't understand it any better than the next person, but at least I haven't made up a neat story about it and gone off on a smug proseltyzing mission.

Other than that, you don't know what any individual atheist will profess. They run an equal chance of being liberal or conservative or libertarian. It is not something "taught" at liberal universities any more than it is something covertly disseminated through the media. People typically come to atheism through rational thought and reject the fairy tales told to them since childhood.

:beer:

[Ben Bartlett]

To start I am also not enamored with Israel, they are not nor ever have been an America’s “ally” in the vein of the UK, Canada, or Australia - despite what the US liberal “Zionist controlled” national media keeps repeating.

Actually, in an interesting twist, the conservatives have become much more strident supporters of Israel than the liberals. Israel's main backer in this country is a coalition between Jewish neo-conservatives and the right-wing Christians. This had leaves the current President in a sticky situation, as he cannot do anything to crack down on Israel without alienating his own political base (this was not the case a decade or so ago when his father was President; when the elder Bush cracked down on Israel, the only people he annoyed were Democrats, who wouldn't have supported him anyway). Not that there isn't support for Israel among liberals, but the balance has definitely shifted the other way. You are correct, however, in saying they aren't really an ally in the vein of the UK, Canada, or Australia. Israel's more like a protectorate.

[knotwell]

"As for the whole thing about Israel having a right to defend themselves, yes they do. Yet, not with weapons that say "Made in U.S.A." on the side of them."

Uzis and Desert Eagles are both manufactured by an Israeli company named IMI. Similarly, they designed and manufactured their own tank.

Next, I suppose you'll say we send them too much money. This may be true, but we send a good number of $$$ to Egypt as well. Personally, I've thought Israel's enemies oughta be careful what they wish for. I'd posit an Israel without the support of the US would be far more dangerous than it is now.

"Their kin being mowed down by weapons manufactured here."

Hyperbole much? Try to bear with me, but the Israelis have acted with more restraint than other countries in their situation (this is especially true if you consider the other countries in their region) would have.

If the famously competent Israeli Defense Forces were "mowing people down with machine guns." I'd argue the casualty figures would be significantly higher than they are.

"Oh yeah...another thing...I can't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but there are more Islamic Arab citizens of the U.S. than there are Jewish citizens in the U.S."

Last I looked, about 4% of the US population was Jewish. IIRC, there are about 6-7M Arab-Americans in the US.

"maybe Jewish citizens in this country have something that Islamic citizens don't?"

Yeah, like political clout, savvy, and a story that plays better with the American people than "death to Israel."

My vote for stupidest political bet of the 20th century: don't accept the Balfour agreement, shun partition and invade. Lather, rinse, repeat and wonder who this tit-for-tat guy is anyhow.

Indulge me for a moment: voted for Nader?

[Iain]

Originally posted by knotwell

"Their kin being mowed down by weapons manufactured here."

Hyperbole much? Try to bear with me, but the Israelis have acted with more restraint than other countries in their situation (this is especially true if you consider the other countries in their region) would have.


I don't know how nuch is their restraint and how much is their being restrained. After the sucessful invasion of the Golan Heights during the '67 war, the Israelis wanted to pust right on past Kuneitra into Damascus, and they could have done it. The only two things that made the Israelis rethink this action were repeated commands from the US for IDF forces to pull out, and a Soviet threat to drop 150,000 paratroopers into Egypt if they so much as set foot in the city.
I believe that it was over this disagreement with the Americans that the IAF sank an American communications ship. Just goes to show that the Israelis don't sit comfortably in anyones back pocket.

There's little doubt in my mind that the Israelis could probably mop the floor with any kind of combined Arab army that its enemies could put together, and if the situation continues to escalate in the current fashion, they may be forced to. The Jordanians have the only army in the region that is pound-for-pound on par with the Israelis, but it is a postage stamp army for a postage stamp country. Now I understand the Israeli people have no wish to conquer and occupy more land and have to deal with more angry subject populations, but it's the immediate effect of the warlike behaviour that both sides seem prone to indulging in. My advice to both sides would be to sit back and wait for the other to commit some kind of horrible atrocity to the other and then use it as an excuse to completely annihalate the offending party.

I've come to the sad conclusion that somebody has to win a total victory. Either the Arabs have to annihalate the Israelis or vice-versa. Personally I don't have a preference as to who wins, But if I was a betting man, my money would be on the Israelis.

God willing, the side that wins the war will choke when it comes time to start mopping up the civilians.

[Earl Hartman]

For those of you who think that Israel is a "rogue state", I would ask you, as an historical exercise, to identify the following person:

Haj Amin al Husseini

This will count towards your final grade.

[Stéphan Thériault]

This the right guy?

http://www.wzo.org.il/home/portrait/mufti.htm

I swear that google search was hard work!

[Earl Hartman]

That's the guy. There is more information here:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/husseini.html

The picture of him with the Nazi soldier is especially endearing.

If you read what he wrote about the Jews and understand who he was and what he did, you can see that the present "intifada" is no different from the anti-Jewish riots and pogroms that Husseini fomented in the '20s and '30s and that the goals, strategy, tactics, and propaganda of the Arab terrorists have remained essentially unchanged from Husseini's time until now. There is a straight line from Husseini to Arafat.

And their goal and message has always been the same: "Juden Raus", just like their Nazi mentors.

For all of those people who think that Israel is a "rogue state":

Sorry if the necessity for the Jews to continually defend themselves inconveniences you. You might want to help Israel finish off the terrorists once and for all instead of telling them to surrender becasue you're afraid the price of gas is going to go up.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Atheists are plentiful and by and large totally unorganized. Not even the various organizations or magazines that exist claim to speak for anything other than a very few people.
There are some excellent secular bodies that promote rational, secular humanity as an antidote to religion, though, Harvey. The American Humanist Association (http://www.americanhumanist.org/) and the British Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/) are two good examples. Their regular publications are worth reading.
It's not true to say that gods are "impossible", only that by definition, complex beings are more statistically unlikely, so an infinitely powerful supreme being would be infinitely unlikely to exist. Also, a universe created by design would be very different from the universe we inhabit; in effect, the best that an adherent of any Abrahamic religion can say is that god wound up the universe, but hasn't interfered in it since; he's been taking a hands-off approach for 15 billion years!
The important point to recognise is that the primary purpose of religion has always been scientific: To explain the origins of life and the universe. Most people of faith mistakenly believe that modern science isn't big enough to answer all the questions. They're wrong, but our education systems are flawed, so they don't know that. The most tragically amusing thing about the Middle East conflict is that people inherit the religion of their parents, just as they inherit eye colour or facial shape. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, when it comes to the myriad religions on offer, people join the sect to which their parents belonged, rather than the sect with the best logical arguments, the best music, the best ceremonies, or whatever. Now, how rational is that? In the boozeup threads, Matt IchiRiKen Stone accuses me of drowning myself in alcohol, but I ask you: What else is going to anesthetise the horror of such stupidity? All that death in the name of a discredited creation myth, over gods that don't exist! Chekov couldn't have come up with anything better.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to drown my sorrows... :beer:

[Exorcist_Fist]

I might point out that the Mufti's rallying support for the Germans amongst the muslims is not quite the damning evidence it could be. Through out Africa it was common for black africans to support Germany, both emotionally and sometimes militarily. The reasoning for this was tied to the fact more to the fact that?@Hitler was seen as "my enemies enemy", and thus a possible source of liberation from the colonial yolk. This was especially clear in cases of British Colonies.

The political views of hitler on the jews had little to do with the matter, though it was not widely broadcast that hitler considered blacks to be lower than jews, and arabs to be on par with them.

[Earl Hartman]

Sorry, but the Mufti is on record as hoping to be able to "solve" the "Jewish question" in Palestine as Hitler was "solving" it in Europe.

He was a Nazi plain and simple, and Arafat is no better.

[Exorcist_Fist]

While I would dearly love to accept the word of someone I dont know on the internet, common sense prevails. I have no reason to disbelieve or to believe your argument, but if you can substantiate it with other than a "sorry", I would find that preferable. Is there perhaps a museum where documentary evidence is stored that you can refer me too?

Edit: I am not changing the post, but I feel it necessary to say that I can understand to some degree the depths of feelings which Earl has in this matter. That being said, I am not attempting to necessarily be a jerk, but to clarify that in this emotionally charged issue, facts not sweeping assumptions are what is needed. While I am guilty of this as well, my post was intended only to show that there are other potential reasons for the Mufti's support of Germany. If there is solid documentation to the contrary I would be interested to see it. Websites do not count as documentation, as any buffoon can make one.

[Amir]

Being an israeli

I'll admit I am not objective.

However, I would like to give a few comments.

The first, is to direct you to a excellent post written by a fellow Israeli and budoka, in another M.A. site:
http://www.cyberkwoon.com/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forums&file=index&action=viewtopic&topic=6570&forum=12&74

I must admit, my political view are somewhat different then his, but not by that much. Like him, I did not vote for Arial Sharon, as I thought him to be an extremist. Unlike him, I was not in support of Barak's peace offer in Camp David, since I believed it was dangerous. You could say I belong to the majority of Israelis who are positioned around the center of the political map, wish for peace, but only on such terms that will insure Israel long standing safety.

Now, a few historical facts, I apologize for not seeking the links to "prove them" (there are enough sites on both sides that publish any facts you wish for ...):

1. The Israeli alliance with the US started only around 1973. At the 1967 war Israel had no american weapons. The US wasn't the only supporter of the 1947 UN decision, proclaiming the establishment of 2 states in Israel instead of the British Mandate, the Soviet Union supported as well. The resistance to this decision came from the Arab states.

The Arab states didn't suffice in diplomatic means, but once a Jewish state has been announced, they attacked it. Starting the Israeli Independence war. In which Israel has succeeded in capturing even more land then the UN gave it. In the next few years, many Jews came to Israel, a large portion of them from the Arab states. Had all these Jews been in Israel before the UN decision, it would probably have changed it’s suggested borders (the borders were based on several committees which checked the situation under the British mandate which prohibited Jews from coming to Israel.

Due to the nature of war, many of the Arab residents left their homes. Giving a fair judgment, it seems both sides encouraged this behavior. The Arab states called Arab civilians to leave, to make the war easier for them. The Jewish forces have in some cases forced Arab population away, especially since most Arab villages were also centers for Milita that attacked Israeli transportation. These are the realities of war.

However, after the war, the Arab states while coming to a cease fire with Israel, decided not to agree with it’s existence. Therefore, the refugees were never given a chance to settle down in Arab states, note that the number of Jews that immigrated to Israel from the Arab states roughly equals the number of Arab refugees, and the Jews were forced to leave without their possessions …
Further, the area currently under argument: “the occupied territories”. After the 1947 war, this area was occupied by the Jordanian’s – an Arab state. Did they follow the UN ruling and declare a Palestinian state ?
No way, they simply attached it to their country, and would you be surprised to learn the Palestinians did not find this to harm any of their “natural national rights “ ?

This is the beginning of the conflict, and it is not just a religious conflict but a national & cultural conflict as well. There are no Arab democracies in the region, while Israel is a western state in most respects, except it is the only one under a constant threat of annihilation and terror.

I could continue writing about the history, but I would like to do some other things today as well (this post is long enough as it is). But I am willing to reply if you have specific questions.


2. I hate ruining the picture for you, having to look every-evening in your TV and see the Israeli “oppression”. But are you aware of the real situation. Arial Sharon is considered a right wing extremist, do you know how he came to be elected in a democracy ?

Barak offered the Arafat and the Palestinian people a state occupying almost all of the territories, including some land exchanges. Many Israelis considered this offer very dangerous, myself included, as the pre 1967 borders were considered indefensible at the time, Would you as a budoka agree to be in such a position, not being sure of the other’s intentions?
However. This was Barak’s offer. And the Palestinian response was not to continue negotiating, but rather to start a violent uproar – the current Intifada. Trying to gain more achievements by force, not diplomacy.
As a response, the Israeli people changed it’s government and elected Sharon, a militarist leader. If another wishes to attack you, would you turn the other cheek?

To everyone surprise, Sharon first reaction was not to start a war, but rather to declare a unilateral cease-fire. That lasted for a few months (about a year ago). During the cease-fire, there were multiple terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. The best known was a Palestinian suicide bomber, who exploded at a disco entrance near the Israeli Aqua-life center: ‘Dolphinarium’.

The current operation, which is about to end in a few days or weeks, has started after Israel has suffered about one terrorist attack everyday, for more then a month. People became afraid to go to restaurants, coffee shops, shopping centers etc. The building I work at currently employs several guards outside every entrance; they check any incomer handbags and clothes, to insure he isn’t carrying bombs. Most schools and kinder gardens have several guards as well.

Had any other western state lived under similar conditions, it’s army wouldn’t be as careful of civilian population as the IDF. I bring your attention to the recent US attack on Afghanistan. If you consider that attack as justified (I do), then you should consider Israel to be even more justified. The Afghan authorities merely stated they will not extradite Bin-Laden to the US. Palestinian authority members were involved in terrorist acts. And there is evidence the Palestinian authority as a body with Arrafat at it’s head supported and gave logistical support to the terror.
The US was far less gentle then Israel have been. One must be naïve to believe the number of civilian casualties in successive bombardments to be even in the same magnitude of order of the IDF’s.
Even more evidence of the cruelty of war could be found if you’ll check the US and European operations in Bosnia. More journalists ventured there, and there were multiple cases of bombs hitting civilians …

If Israel had wanted to annihilate the city of Jennin, The IDF would not allow infantry to enter the city before bombarding it, as any other modern army does. Israeli troops have paid for this consideration with their lives.

So please, don’t talk to me about atrocities.

3. One last subject. Some of you may argue: “ Israel deserves the terror since it occupies a territory which shouldn’t be her own”. Leaving the history aside (it was subject 1) , I would like to post a few arguments:

Diplomatic negotiations have started. Then the Palestinian’s have decided to use violence, rather try and resolve the conflict peacefully.

Israel has drawn it’s forces back from Lebanon, to the agreement of the UN (remember the original newspaper writer sits in Bierut ?) . Yet the Hizballah continued to attack Israel, in the last few months, making various demands. Does the international community comment on this ? Did the UN forces posted in Lebanon try to interfere with this activity ?
How can you expect Israel to trust its existence and safety to the international community while the latter does nothing to protect it ?
(The last attack wave has been stopped after secretary Powel ‘s visit to Syria, Israel had to threaten with a much wider retaliatory attack to achieve this. One need not be a prophet to assume the next wave will come on a few months at most).


I do not claim Israelis are saint’s, my state has made many mistakes, and did harm civilians occasionally. But not willingly. Israeli soldiers have even stolen from Palestinians using the operation as cover, but at least some of them were captured by the military police and will go to trial, and this has made the papers in Israel, to the shame of these soldiers. Yesterday I heard they caught a few rouge Israelis that tried to “revenge”, they will go to jail for a long time. The Israeli public condemns these acts.
At the same time, I see Palestinian mothers saying their sons should be suicide bombers on TV. After a bomb explodes in a civilian center, I hear the Palestinians claim it is the fault of Israel, not taking any responsibility, and when forced to put someone to jail, You have probably heard of the “revolving door” type of jail they invented.
You can’t equate the moral grounds of both sides, I know I am pre-justiced, but Israel as a state and people behave according to a much more stringent moral code. Yet, being judged by impossible standards, non of you would have accepted for your own state or yourself as a budoka.

Being Budoka, I would have thought most of you would understand my claims. Try and imagine it on the personal level – an analogy: being required to accept non stopping harassments, asked to give various concessions each time, and being in a danger for your lives all the time, a danger each concession increases.

I know this post came out long, and I didn’t even answer all the claims written
But I must stop now

So may you all find peace, and never have to live in a state in such a state.

Amir

[Exorcist_Fist]

I would like to add that the majority of Palestinians in other Arab states suffer from some rather atrocious behavior from their Arab brothers. For information on this, you can research the actions of the Kuwaitis both before and after the Iraqi invasion.

If I might pose a question, can it really be held up that there is currently a unified palestinian authority capable of stopping the terror attacks? To be frank I believe it is impossible. Arafat has zero credibility with the Palestinians I know. I simply can not believe he has any authority within the Palestinian community at large, especially with extremists who feel the need, for whatever reason, to throw their lives away.

That being the case, how does Israel begin to move towards a peace that any reasonable person should seek? There is no unified authority, and no matter how many people you arrest, every time you do so, you only generate more possible terrorists. It really does not matter if the international community sees you as oppressors. It matters that the palestinians see you as such.

Regardless, I am personally in favor of either cutting of aid to Israel, or splitting the aid in half and using half to support supervised economic development in the Palestinian territories. Last time i checked, unemployment was 40% there, and all the jobs are in the Isreali lands. The devil makes work for idle hands. At the very least, recent actions have opened the possiblity for some growth in the construction field.

Ah well. Lets be honest, this whole thread is pointless. Have a good day, I am going to sleep. Tomorrow I will check to see if Amir has responded, and then I will cease and desist.

Dan

[Amir]

Dan
you asked for my reply
yet I do not understand the question

If the question is “do the Palestinians see the Israelis as oppressors?”

Well, yes they do. I have no doubt about it.
Right or wrong, this is their view.
Even though since the Oslo agreement over 90% of them are in the Palestinian authority.

If it is: “are the Palestinians oppressed ?”

Well, to my and most Israelis sorrow, they are, at least to some extent. Being in a war zone is never easy, The steps Taken to defend against Palestinian terror often harm the innocent population as well. Neither roadblock nor a curfew are distinctive, they heart the Palestinians no doubt.

An interesting relevant point I just read about in the paper. An Israeli politician suggested that when a Palestinian state is established, some of the land exchange with it will be areas populated with Arabs, known as the “triangle”.
The Israeli Arab population strongly objected to this claim, called it outrageous and racist.
Note, he didn’t offer to transfer them (there is a racist right wing party in Israel, it has a minor support in the public) nor to relocate them. He suggested Israel would exchange heavily Jewish populated areas in the territories with heavily Arab populated areas in Israel.

The Arab resistance to these ideas is taken by the Jewish population in 2 distinct ways:

1. The Palestinian don’t just want a state in the territories. It is just the first stage in an attempt to concur all the land.
This opinion is supported with the Palestinian demand of Israel to accept all the refugees and give them back their homes & lands. Many of those lands are now town centers worth much more or dense residential areas (Imagine returning all the US to the Indians – almost accurate analogy). Further, Israel can not accept a few million Arabs and remain a Jewish state (the only one in the world as opposed to over 25 Arab states).
2. The Israeli Palestinian (Arabs) prefer living in Israel. Even though there is some discrimination against them. They find living in the Israeli democracy much better then living in a corrupt Arab dictatorship (sorry, check around, this is an accurate description of all the states around us, the only difference is quantities, not qualities).



Then again, if the question is for my reference to the paragraph:
“Regardless, I am personally in favor of either cutting of aid to Israel, or splitting the aid in half and using half to support supervised economic development in the Palestinian territories. Last time i checked, unemployment was 40% there, and all the jobs are in the Isreali lands. The devil makes work for idle hands. At the very least, recent actions have opened the possibility for some growth in the construction field.”

Well, I suppose the question is what is the aim of American aid. With the assistance of the American aid, Israel has become quite a modern developed society, despite the constant threat of war and lack of any natural resources.
Currently the Israeli GMP is larger then that of all the surrounding Arab states.

So if the aid is supposed to go the countries with the worst economical situation, it definitely shouldn’t come to Israel. If though, it is supposed to be assistance to a fellow democracy, to maintain it in harsh conditions – I doubt you could find many other countries as worthy.
I don’t know if you are aware of this. In the last few years, most of the American aid to Israel is military aid, to be used in buying in the U.S. It doesn’t help the Israeli economy, just relieves some of the security burden of it.

Another interesting fact, unlike all the historical and sociological claims, the current Intifada started when the Palestinian economy was in a flourish. The current unemployment comes due to Palestinian violence only. Just a few Israelis are willing to hire Palestinian workers after quite a few of those have stabbed their employer in the back, in the non-literal meaning. The Palestinian schools and Universities teach the children and students to hate, how to fight, instead of how to become constructive Palestinian citizens. Do you honestly believe economy could flourish in a war zone?

The Palestinian authority has received several Billions of US $ in the last few years. It seems most of it goes either to private pockets (a corrupt state didn’t we say?) or to support terror and buy new military hardware. It almost seems like the Palestinian leaders wish to keep their people poor, to make sure they will continue to fight.

Enough said in this subject.


Something to
hawaiianvw67
who wrote:
“Another stupid thing about this whole conflict: The state of Israel, right now, the borders that it maintains...they are not the historical/ancient borders of the Kingdom of David. The land Israel occupies is technically the land of the Philistines, whom they never fully conquered. "Palestine" as we hear it from the media, where all the suicide-bombers come from, that is the ancient domain of Israel. So, if Israel wants their ancient homeland back, I say we give it to them. Let them take up residence in the arid wasteland that the PLO resides in, and let the PLO take over the productive coastal plains of ancient Philistia.”

Well, when the Zionist Jews returned to Israel starting at 1891, they couldn’t settle in the old mountainous area: it was populated by Arab villagers. So, they settled in the plains, which were marshlands at that time. And guess what, they took this marshland and made it flourish, made it become “the productive coastal plains of ancient Philistia” as you described it. Some Israelis settled the ‘Arava’ a large waterless plain north of Eilat - their settlements still flourish. Actually in doing it Israel has developed agricultural techniques that were exported to Africa as well as to some desrt areas in the US and even to some Arab states (they erased the “made in Israel” label). So please, don’t talk to us about deserts.

However, the main reason the right wing in Israel isn’t willing to give up the territories, is exactly that – it is the crab of the Jewish people. This is the cause some Israelies insist on living in Hebron. Believe me, this is a major cause of political upheaval in Israel. There were some times in Jewish history the land was even larger, including the Golan heights and part of Jordan, as well as most of coastal areas. Therefore, the right wing extremists claim the Jews have has already given up more then half of Israel…

Enough for now

Amir

[Earl Hartman]

What Amir said.

Ever since the Peel Commission recommended partition in the 30s, the Arabs have rejected every single attempt to come to any sort of compromise that would allow the Jews to have independence in their original homeland and accomodate the independence of the Arabs in Israel/Western Palestine. Every single suggestion has been met with rejection, terrorism, and war. There is no need to itemize the Arab rejectionism here; it can easily be researched should one care to do so.

The salient point is that, until Sadat went to Jerusalem, ALL of the Arab states were officially in a state of war with Israel. The ONLY Arab states which are now officially at peace with Israel are Egypt and Jordan. ALL of the other Arab staes still, to this day, are in a state of war with Israel of their own choosing, all a result of their original rejection of partition and their attempted war of annihilation in 1948. Indeed, the PLO was founded in 1964 (three fulll years prior to the war in 1967, which resulted in the "occupied territories" that are supposedly the "root of the conflict"). How, then, can Israel be accused of starting a war? The "borders" of 1967 that everyone is insisting Israel go back to are not borders, nor have they ever been. They were ceasefire lines, which, of course, the Arabs never accepted as borders at all. The state of war exists already. The periodic flareups of violence are just battles in an ongoing war that is within the power of the Arabs to stop any time they want. It takes a whole heap o' unmitigated gall to insist that Israel obey lopsided, anti-Israel UN resolutions when the Arab flouting of the UN is what got us into this mess to begin with.

In such a situation, any reasonable person would expect that the ones who declared war should be the ones to lay down their arms. But no, instead, every time the Arabs blow people up while they are sitting down to dinner at Passover or murder 5 year old children in their sleep, the world tells the Jews to stop shooting back and that if they don't behave their aggressive, pushy little selves everybody in the world is going to stop liking them.

Well, get a clue. You want the shooting to stop, you tell the Arabs that their attempted politicide of Israel and attempted genocide of the Jews is the real "root of the conflict" and that the situation in which the Arabs find themselves is not the CAUSE of their hostility, it is the RESULT of their hostility.

When people get their moral sense back instead of worrying how much it will cost to fill up their SUVs should the Arabs get mad enough that the Jews refuse to cooperate in their own destruction and turn off the spigot again, maybe there will be peace.

Since all of the information on the web is apparently suspect because any bozo can make a website, I won't bother to give Dan any links that might cause him to actually think about this.

[Michael Plank]

I could really stand to be better educated on this subject, so I've started doing research on my own. Hopefully soon I can add something meaningful to this discussion.

Michael Plank

[Shitoryu Dude]

This explains it pretty well.

:beer:

[Shitoryu Dude]

How it will end.

:beer:

[Earl Hartman]

That's fine except for the "Israelis expel Palestinians" part. There would have been no refugees if the Arabs had accepted the UN partiton resolution. They didn't, and gambled everything on a war. They lost. When there is a war, there are refugees. If you don't want refugees, don't start a war. The Arabs have only themselves to blame.

There is no moral equivalency between defeated aggressors and their intended victims, and it is evidence of the moral myopia of the world at large, as evidenced by that silly cartoon, that people think that there is.

[Shitoryu Dude]

That's not how I interpreted the cartoons, and considering the general flavor or Horsey's work, not how they were intended to be interpreted.

:beer:

[Earl Hartman]

How do you interpret them, then?

The first cartoon says that the Jews are no better than any of the other conquerors of the land, because they expelled people like everyone else. Therefore, there is no real moral difference between the Israelis and the Arabs.

The second cartoon basically says that everyone is crazy and that it is only bloody-mindedness that keeps the conflict going, the end of which will be that everyone is killed. Again, no moral difference between the combatants. They're all crazy, right?

Very even handed and objective.

Well, there IS a moral difference. The Jews accepted a compromise solution in 1948 that would have given the Jews back their state after 2,000 years and would have created an independent state for Palestinian Arabs FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.

The Arabs rejected this compromise. There is no escaping this one central fact, and the present day conflict stems directly from this original decision of the Arabs to settle things by force.

There is no greater difference than that between people who want to build their own country and those who wish to destroy someone else's state rather than building their own. That is the fundamental fact of this whole sorry mess.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Cartoon #1 - The point is that for thousands of years everyone has been fighting everyone else for control of a near worthless hunk of real estate. Nobody really has any real "historical" claim to it since at one time or another it seems as if half of the world has occupied it.

Cartoon #2 is quite easy to explain. Regardless of who may have the moral high ground, the winner will be the last on alive. You will notice that the "winner" is not readily discernable to be either Palestinian or Israeli.

Personally, I don't think anybody had any business trying to tell people that they have to give up their land to people who want to emigrate there from foreign countries. Secondly, Israel isn't any different from any other batch of crazed zealots with guns. I'd like to see both sides nuked into oblivion along with all the "holy sites".

:beer:

[Earl Hartman]

When you talk aout immigrants, are you talking about all of the Arabs who immigrated into Israel/Palestine from places like Egypt and Iraq looking for jobs when the Jews created flourishing farms and other businesses and bulit Tel Aviv from scratch, and then later claimed to have been living in Israel/Palestine "from time immemorial"? Or some other immigrants? Your bias is showing.

Just nuke everyone? Oh, THAT's real creative. If you think that everybody involved is useless, why bother to post at all?

[Shitoryu Dude]

My personal opinion is that there really isn't anyone acting civilized in the whole Israel/Palestine dustup. Since they seem to be intent on genocide over a few perceived holy sites; deny them to both sides and make an object lesson out of them. I am sick and tired of listening to disingenuous lies and revisonist history out of both sides. Would you like to see WW III start over this stupid squabble? It could very well happen.

"There is no problem that cannot be solved with a judicious application of high explosives"

:beer:

[Earl Hartman]

Sorry, I absolutely refuse to accept your contention that the Israelis are committing any kind of genocide. If that were true, why are there a million Arabs living in Israel proper, why do Arabs sit in the Israeli Knesset, why do they have the right to vote, and why is Arabic, along with Hebrew, an official language of Israel? Your use of the word "genocide" just shows how ridiculously debased this whole discussion has become.

If you really want to learn something, go here:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

[Shitoryu Dude]

Your anti-Arab prejudice is quite evident. I am quite sure you have good reasons to be sitting on the side of the fence you are on, I just don't agree with them.

I've read a great deal on the subject and have come to the conclusion that if anybody has a moral claim to the land, it isn't the jews. That said, I repeat my position that none of the groups involved meets the criterion for acting in a civilized manner.

I'm dropping out of this thread - discussing Israel is about as constructive (and worthwhile) as talking to a wall.

:beer:

[Exorcist_Fist]

Sigh.

Amir, the question was:

Exactly who does Israel plan on negotiating peace with, since it is clear that there is no single coherent palestinian authority. The articles I read both in US and other news sources (Israeli and arabic) indicate that Sharon wants the suicide bombings stopped before further negotiations proceed. Who exactly has the power to do that?

[Exorcist_Fist]

Since all of the information on the web is apparently suspect because any bozo can make a website, I won't bother to give Dan any links that might cause him to actually think about this.

Actually, all knowledge is suspect. Books are too. Just because someone writes something down does not make it true. The rote acceptance of "documentary" evidence drawn from suspect sources is, in my opinion, a clearer indication of a lack of thought than anything else. You are welcome to post whatever links you have, but you should not assume I will accept it as true.

I might add you have not mentioned where any solid documentation of the Mufti's leanings might be. Despite what you might think, simply because I have dared to disagree with your opinion, I am open to new information, provided it is solidly substantiated.

If you are so ready to accept everything you read on the internet, I suggest you check out the following link:

the truth is out there (http://www.jukokai.com/)

Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, the defense rests.

[Michael Plank]

Originally posted by Earl Hartman

Well, there IS a moral difference. The Jews accepted a compromise solution in 1948 that would have given the Jews back their state after 2,000 years and would have created an independent state for Palestinian Arabs FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY.

The Arabs rejected this compromise. There is no escaping this one central fact, and the present day conflict stems directly from this original decision of the Arabs to settle things by force.


I think we should go back just one step further. I don't mean to take sides on this, but I have some information that will help. In WWI, Britain was fighting the Turks with the help of the Arabs (Lawrence of Arabia and all that, yes, he was real). Thanks in large part to Arab guerrilla tactics in the deserts of the Ottoman Empire, the British won several resounding victories and eventually the war. When the British negotiated treaties with the Arabs for their help in driving out the Turks, they promised that the Arabs could keep all the land that they helped drive the Turks out of. As is so shamefully often the truth, the British apparently never intended to keep their end of the bargain and they promptly started settling Jews in land that the Arabs had taken and been promised. To make things even worse, though, the British didn't allow the Jews to own weapons, so angry Arabs began to slaughter entire settlements. Jewish Commando groups formed and began to fight back with bloody consequences and so on...obviously my history is shaky at best, but the point is that the Arabs had reason to believe that they would get the land. That the Jews "compromised" by taking some of the land that had been promised in treaty to the Arabs is hardly inspirational to me...

Now, like I say, I may be missing some important details, but I have (though some time ago) read about the Arab involvement in WWI and some of the events subsequent to that.

I definitely don't want to take sides at all, though the information that I just presented does seem pretty pro-Arab.

I think that neither side is exactly admirable (and nor is the US). I'm frankly offended by "Shitoryu Dude"'s obvious lack of respect for human life. Both sides have their problems, but as far as I can see neither side is actually totally in the wrong. It seems that the best way to work on solving this is to try and find solutions without suggesting violence or blame. Maybe I'm just naive.

Oh, and one other thing. I may be dead wrong in this, but this seems to me to be mostly an issue of power and land as opposed to religion. I know that religion plays a role, but I really think that the few Muslim fanatics are being used in what is really a secular war.

I hope that this post wasn't a complete waste of time.

Sincerely,
Michael Plank

[Amir]

to "Shitoryu Dude" - yes why not nuke everybody, that's definitely the solution, isn't it ??
Sorry, but I don’tt feel like I should refer to any other statement of your, after presenting such a “serious attitude” in this matter.


To "Michael Plank" - I can't claim to know all about the British WW I agreements. I would turn your attention to the 'Balfur declaration', however. Further, to the best of my knowledge, the Arab assistance to the British forces was mostly evident in Saudi Arabia, and if I am not mistaken, in Iraq. In Israel, there was a small Jewish group, which helped the British forces. There was also a Jewish regiment assisting the British forces in WW I.

However, I believe it is a totally unimportant subject. Do you honestly believe the fate of the Israeli and Palestinian People, should be determined by the British, in accordance of their national interests ? Does this strike you as fair ?


From my own personal point of view, at the present, the basic moral 'ideal' rights of both the Jewish people and the Arab people to the lands they claim are about equal.
Yes, we, the Jewish people where in Israel first, and there were a constant Jewish settlement in Israel since before Christ birth.
But, in the meantime, Arabs did settle in this country (and if some of them immigrated to Israel because the Zionist Jewish immigration caused a financial flourish, who cares), and during the establishment of the state of Israel, some of them did become refugees (once again, the fault probably lies on both sides).

So, trying to argue who has more rights on this piece of land is a pointless argument.

But trying to find a peaceful solution is not. In the last decade, Israel has continuously tried to find such a solution. Starting with the Oslo agreement, done when the PLO was at its weakest point, and after the previous Intifada (rocks and knives only then) calmed down.
Each time, once some concessions were done to the Palestinian leadership and an accord was reached, a new wave of terrorism immerged. The Israeli public turned to the right-wing leadership, to stall the agreements for a while, the Terror wave subdued. The Israeli public returned to the left-wing leadership to promote the peace some more.
In this process, it seems the Palestinian leadership came to the conclusion Israel retreats from their Terror. Ad slowly began to endorse it. I have read claims that Arafat prefers getting is state through war and blood rather then getting an even larger state through negotiations.
Lately, in view of the Palestinian refusal to accept president Clinton’s peace offer in Camp David, which Barak accepted. Since the Palestinian gave raise to demands that equate the Israel’s demise through negotiations, and turned to violence once these were refuted, there came a change in Israeli society, less and less people believe peace is achievable in the near future. More believe that Israel should use it army full force to ensure their life safety, as I already wrote, before the last military operation life became intolerable here - every day one heard of bombs exploding some other place.
Yet, If any of you think the Israel army turned it’s full force on the Palestinian people, trying to annihilate them like some claim, think again. Israel tried to keep the last operation as surgical as possible, using infantry without artillery cover, entering the cities and not bombing them from the Air (the US solution in all it’s last 3 wars). Bringing to trial soldiers who behave immorally for reasons of Legality and self imposed moral (just read about a brigadier accused of molesting a Palestinian family, he is on trial), rightfully crucifying them in the Israeli media.
On the other hand, the Palestinian authority continuously refuses to fight the terror through it’s own system (as agreed upon in the Oslo agreement, the very base for it’s existence). Palestinian leadership and media keep encouraging all and especially their children to fight the Israelis and turn “Shahid” i.e. become a suicide bomber. Even at the best of times, their educational system kept pouring hate into these children, promoting an unending war.

When I speak of unequal moral standings, I refer to this last part. The Palestinian has consciously decided to go to war. Deciding they won’t get all their demands through peaceful means. They use Terror as their main offensive weapon, striking women and children intentionally.
Yet they shout massacre every time one of their women or children dies as a result of the war they initiated. In most if not all cases, these deaths are against the wishes of the Israel so called aggressor.

And YOU, as part of the international community, instead of supporting Israel and demanding the Palestinians to stop their terror first then return and try to resolve the conflict in peaceful means. Making it clear that the Palestinians must pay some political price as a result of their decision to leave the discussions.
Well, instead, YOU either blame the Israeli side:
“if you are the stronger, you should make concessions”, even to a person who repeatedly attacks you after any concession you make? I doubt you behave this way personally.
Or YOU claim equality between the sides : “both are inhuman monsters…”. I would equate you to those who watch a fight and make no distinguish between aggressors and the defenders. Are the defenders to blame if they know to fight better? Is this your message as Martial artists? This the way you would like to be judged if you will have to defend your selves in the street one day ?


To Dan:
To my sorrow (as I do not support him), Sharon said it all when he declared Arafat is “no longer relevant to the peace process”. When asked he said : “It’s not that I am making him irrelevant. He has done it himself by his own decisions against the peace process.” To my sorrow, I don’t see Sharon holding a constant peace viable option; I see his declarations escalating after the violence.
As for the Palestinian side, make no mistake, there is a huge support to going in the War path. I doubt any leader coming after Arafat could change this in the near future, not without a strong unyielding international demand and pressure. To my sorrow, it seems the international community isled by the Arab states into attacking Israel (check all the UN accords). This way will only result in more death :-(


To Michael
You are right, the religion is just an agerrating part, not the issue.


Amir
P.S.
If you wouldn’t mind, I came to this site to write about budo and M.A. rather then the situation in Israel. I would therefore drop this subject, at least for a while.

[Ben Bartlett]

Lately, in view of the Palestinian refusal to accept president Clinton’s peace offer in Camp David, which Barak accepted.

This gets brought up a lot, so I thought I'd point a few things out. Now, personally, I think Arafat isn't the greatest leader, but in all fairness, he couldn't have accepted the peace offer in Camp David. Why, you ask? Because Barak wanted to keep an extra 9% of the West Bank, and was only willing to give the Palestinians the equivalent of 1% of the land from elsewhere in Israel. There's no way Arafat could've explained to the Palestinians that he accepted a 9-to-1 land exchange. The Israelis also wanted to build a road through Palestine, which they could block off at any time they pleased, effectively splitting Palestine into two (would you let another country do that to your country? I sure wouldn't). There were a host of other issues, as well. Also, it's not as though Arafat rejected the proposal and then declared war on Israel. He went on to negotiate further in Egypt, and there was every indication that he was going to continue to negotiate. Then the intifada happened. Did Arafat start the intifada? No. How do I know that? Because the intifada wasn't just against Israel, it was against the corruption of Arafat's regime. Remember, at the time, his popularity was dismally low. Sharon, of course, helped spark the intifada, thanks to his arrival with a large contingent of armed guards at one of Islam's holiest sites. Of course, while the intifada worked out miserably for the Palestianians, it worked wonders for Sharon, and in turn, Sharon worked wonders for Arafat (who went from being disliked to being hailed as a hero). Now don't get me wrong here: Arafat hasn't been a saint during the intifada. In order to save himself, he turned it entirely against Israel (of course, Sharon helped there). But Arafat didn't start this, and the rejection of the peace offer in Camp David does not mean he wants the destruction of Israel. The problem with Arafat is that what he wants is the survival of Arafat. He's not willing to take risks. If he thought a peace accord with Israel would guarentee his continued leadership of the Palestinians, he'd sign it. If he thinks it would destroy him, he won't. Of course, that makes him easier to deal with than Sharon, who's historically been much more opposed to peace treaties than Arafat, and, for better or for worse, does have principals which he sticks by, be they popular or not.

The biggest problem with the Israeli/Palestinian situation is, insofar as I can tell, that each side sees itself as the innocent victim, and the other side as the violent aggressor. I went to college with people from both sides. Intelligent, reasonable, friendly people, but on that issue, it was always black and white. The Palestinians couldn't understand how the U.S. could possibly support the obviously evil-and-oppressive Israelis, and the Israelis couldn't understand how anyone could support the evil-and-terrorist-supporting Palestinians. And everything was always the other side's fault. For instance, take the intifada; the Israeli side was: "To defend ourselves from the terrorists, we voted for Sharon", the Palestinian side was: "To keep Sharon from taking what little land we have left, we support the freedom fighters". The truth of the matter is, it doesn't even matter who's fault it is anymore. It's just become a never-ending chain reaction. Violence begets violence which begets more violence, etc, etc. I don't know how it's ever going to end. It's hard for the Israelis to trust the Palestinians when Palestinians are blowing themselves up in Israeli restaurants and grocery stores; on the other hand, it's hard for the Palestinians to trust the Israelis when the Israelis continue to build settlements in what's supposed to be Palestinian terrority. It would, of course, help if the Palestinians had a better leader (the Israelis could use one, too, but they've had them before, and I think if the Palestinians had one, the Israelis would get one too); they need a Ghandi, not an Arafat. But I just don't think that's going to happen, especially not while Sharon is in charge of Israel. It's just a royal mess, to say the least. I'm hoping that something good will come out of the new American-Saudi agreement to put pressure on both sides, but at this point I'm fairly pessimistic.

[Earl Hartman]

To Silent Dan:

Since all information is suspect, why bother to even open your mouth? You're just being lazy. Go listen to the sound of one hand clapping, would you?

To Michael:

You've got part of the story, but not all of it. For more complete information regarding the British/Jewish/Arab understandings regaring the disposition of the lands freed from Turkish rule after WWI, go here:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html

Briefly, the Emir Faisal supported the British against the Turks and agreed to the concept of a Jewish National Home in Israel/Palestine as envisioned by the Balfour Declaration, in recognition of the part the yishuv (the Jewish community in Israel/Palestine) had palyed in defeating the Turks, which led directly to the eventual independence of the Arabs from Turkish domination.

[spartanmachine]

Amir , much of what you state in your posts is nothing more than false propoganda. Sharon instigated the violence just as much as Arafat did. Was it not he who stirred up an already volatile situation, when he led a march to rile up the Palestinians? Please, Sharon wants this just as bad as the Palestinians do, and is just as responsible.
You just don't realise how childish and stupid these arguments seem to those who are objective and remain outside all this garbage. Stop trying to justify the violence that is occurring which is NOT justifiable. No matter what you say BOTH governments are at fault here and have failed their people miserably.

[Earl Hartman]

How did Sharon instigate the violence? Are you talking about his visit to the Har ha Bait (the Temple Mount)? If the sight of a Jew walking in the area where the two Jewish Temples once stood can "instigate" this kind of violence, you have to wonder about the real intentions of the Palestinians. Who says that the Muslims should have the right to bar Jews from praying at the site of the ancient Temple? If the Arabs consider it "arrogant" for the Jews to "insult" Muslims by daring to reject the Muslim claim of exclusive ownership of and rights to the area, which tramples on Jewish rights which are just as valid, then you need look no further for why there is so much trouble.

BTW, I agree that Sharon's visit was tactically foolish, since it gave Arafat the excuse he needed to unleash the intifada that he had long been planning. However, the intifada was not a spontaneous reaction to what Sharon did. It had been in the works long before Sharon went to the Temple Mount.

[spartanmachine]

If the sight of a Jew walking in the area where the two Jewish Temples once stood can "instigate" this kind of violence,

He wasn't just "any jew" Earl. He was a man bent on slapping the other side in the face.

I agree that Sharon's visit was tactically foolish

No it wasn't , he got exactly what he was after.

It had been in the works long before Sharon went to the Temple Mount.

Yes and Sharon used this to escalate the situation and eventually push himself into power, just as he had planned.

I'm not saying that the Arabs aren't wrong here Earl, I'm saying that the Jews are just as wrong.

[Earl Hartman]

From Sharon's point of view, it was not tactically foolish, perhaps. From my point of view, it was.

As far as "slapping the other side in the face" is concerned, why should the Arabs get to do all the slapping and the Israelis get to do all the grinning and bearing? The "it's Sharon's fault since he started it by going to the Temple Mount" position rests on two assmptions:

1) The Temple Mount belongs to the Muslims exclusively and they have the right to bar access to any Jew who wishes to visit it;

2) The assertion of Jewish rights on the Temple Mount is so infuriating and humiliating to the Muslims that they are within their rights to start a war over it.

I reject both assumptions. The Jews have rights in Jerusalem, and the Muslims should not be given the authority, either de facto or de jure, to trample them with impunity. Sharon did not throw the first slap; it is just that public opinion seems to accept the fact that the Muslims are within their rights to start shooting at people over a "humiliation", either real or perceived, but that the Jews are not. This double standard, which presumes the primacy of Arab rights over Jewish ones, infects almost all reporting on the conflict.

[spartanmachine]

We can argue these points until the end of time Earl, but in the complex web that has developed BOTH sides are at fault and are to blame for the violence in the middle east. The only reason why it hasn't stopped is because it is what those in power want, and they have successfully convinced (brainwashed) the public into believing they (either side) is right and innocent. I submit that NEITHER side is innocent. The people being victimized on both sides may be innocent but as groups both are at fault and to blame for the violence. Until they see this, the violence will keep on going, just like Isreal and the Palestinians want. The Jews and Arabs can complain about the other all they want, in reality all they are trying to do is justify their part in all the violence, something that I won't give them the satisfaction of doing.
Neither of these people are warriors, they are quite simply pathetic.
Their useless attempts to gain dominance over the other will keep going on as long as their leaders and people supporting these leaders keep on the road they are on, which can bring NOTHING but more killing and destruction, even though they believe that they will eventually gain dominance over the other.
We need to start denouncing the violence , NOT trying to justify it.
Let's call it what it is Earl and see it for what it is.

[Earl Hartman]

I am perfectly willing to denounce the violence, believe me, and if all you want to do is say "a pox on both their houses", fine. However, the people who say they are in the "peace camp" and who hold the kind of positions exemplified by the article which started this thread basically say "Both sides are to blame but the Israelis are more to blame". After some perfunctory comments about those nasty suicide bombers, they start right in and say that Israel is the real problem. Well, I just will not accept that.

However, if you really believe that both sides are equally to blame, then you should start a real peace movement instead of the bogus one that now exists that seeks to blame Israel for everything.

[Ben Bartlett]

How did Sharon instigate the violence? Are you talking about his visit to the Har ha Bait (the Temple Mount)? If the sight of a Jew walking in the area where the two Jewish Temples once stood can "instigate" this kind of violence, you have to wonder about the real intentions of the Palestinians.

The problem wasn't so much that he showed up, it's that he showed up with a very large body of armed soldiers. Also, remember Sharon is an alleged war criminal, and is best known to the Palestinians for being responsible for the massacre of Palestinians. This wasn't just any old Jew. Try to imagine Osama Bin Laden waltzing into the Statue of Liberty with a small army of Al Qaeda members. That's kind of how it would've felt to the Palestinians. Did they overreact? Yes. But you have to understand the emotion involved. It would've been a miracle if they had done anything but overreact.

BTW, I agree that Sharon's visit was tactically foolish, since it gave Arafat the excuse he needed to unleash the intifada that he had long been planning. However, the intifada was not a spontaneous reaction to what Sharon did. It had been in the works long before Sharon went to the Temple Mount.

As I stated in my above post, the idea that Arafat unleashed the intifada is just plain silly. Originally, the intifada was protesting his government as well as Israel. Maybe some extremists in Hamas and Islamic Jihad were hoping for another intifada, but it really just arose out of the frustration and disappointment of the Palestinians.

Just for the sake of discussion, I'm going to include an editorial written by a fellow from Palestine I knew back in college. Note that this article does not represent my views, but it gives some good insight into how average Palestinians feel about the whole thing.


Palestinian compromises and Israeli 'peace'


By Rae'd Abu-Ghazaleh
OPEN WINDOW

Throughout the recent Al-Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, we have heard all sorts of media distortion and Israeli propaganda in the West, especially in the pro-Israeli (in media and foreign policy) United States.

Yet one of the most illogical and distorted‹in my opinion‹is the claim that Palestinians do not want peace, are 'violent' in their nature, and would rather 'pressure' Israel to give us what we want; such claims and implications we often hear and read in U.S. media.

Before trying to understand the Palestinians' resort to the recent Al-Aqsa Intifada (uprising) and the previous Intifada (1987), we have to understand the value of 'land' and 'home' to Palestinians. For an American to say that "Richmond, Indiana is my home," for example, does not mean the same thing as when a Palestinian says that "Nablus, Palestine is my home."

A Palestinian family could live in the same house for generations‹literally hundreds of years‹with each new generation of the family inheriting it from its fathers and ancestors.

Even the name of the house or land becomes attached to that family, such as 'Beit Al-Far,' which means the house of the Al-Far family, or 'Beit Rima,' which is a whole village from which the large family 'Rimawi' descends ('Rima' is extracted from 'Rimawi').

A major reason for this strong attachment is that many of the lands used to be, and still are, farming lands which are passed on from one generation to another within the family, and are often a main source of living‹and pride.

Now coming back to the focus of the article, and keeping the land-attachment concept in our minds, one has to draw distinction between a just peace and the Israeli/American idea of peace. Deep in their hearts, Palestinians want all of their land back (historical Palestine), and want the 'strangers' out of it.

Such a claim comes from a mix of nationalistic feelings and their legal rights to their lands and homes. Nevertheless, Palestinians realize that their only way of living in peace with Israelis is to compromise, and give up 70 percent of their land to this 'stranger'‹Israel.

The current mainstream Palestinian demands are clear:

(1) A just settlement for the millions of Palestinian refugees (there are more Palestinians outside Palestine than inside). Israel refuses to accept responsibility for the refugee problem to this day, despite the United Nations Resolution 194 issued in 1948, which states that "... the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date ... compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return."

(2) Establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The West Bank and Gaza Strip should not be divided, whether by Jewish settlements or Israeli roads, as is the case right now.

This is such a big compromise from Palestinians, since all of Jerusalem is considered occupied land, and Israel is required to return all of Jerusalem back to the Palestinians along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip according to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which Israel still refuses to accept and implement.

(3) The immediate release of the several thousand Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, prisoners who have suffered the worst types of brutalization and torture according to Israeli and international human rights organizations.

Despite the enormous compromises that Palestinians have extended in exchange for peace, the Israeli/American idea of peace according to the recent Camp David proposal is as follows:

(1) Concerning the refugees, Israel still "would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement," and considers a future return of only 100,000 out of the current registered 3.2 million refugeest a fulfillment of UN Resolution 194.

(2) Concerning the Palestinian state, there would be so many restraints imposed by Israel that it ceases to become a state. These include "the state would not make alliances with other countries without Israel's approval," or "Israel would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians."

(3) Concerning Jerusalem, "Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dis, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre." These places are not even parts of Jerusalem, they are outlying villages of Jerusalem far away from the Muslim and Christian Holy Sites that Palestinians hold dear.

This 'peace' that the Americans and Israelis and proposing is a foul and unjust peace. Without even mentioning other central issues, such as settlements, and the increasingly diminished size of the West Bank, I would hope it has already become clear that the Palestinians have compromised more than anyone would have in their place, and that they genuinely want a just peace.

Still, Israel leaders insist that they have offered Palestinians more than ever during this summer's Camp David peace talks, and that the Palestinians were not willing to 'compromise.'

Still, Palestinian youth do not have the right to throw a stone or burn a tireon thier own land to express their objections and anger (which would be ignored if expressed otherwise), and to get their message through to the rest of the world.

And still, the Palestinians are accused of being 'violent,' and not 'wanting peace.' This is not peace, this is merely a label that America and Israel try to stick on what, to the Palestinians, is utter humiliation and disgrace.

Palestinians often describe the American/Israeli idea of peace as 'rape,' where they are forced to accept it, and if they object to it they'll immediately be labeled as 'violent,' 'peace-rejecters' and even 'terrorists,' not to mention exposing themselves to the insanity of U.S.-made Israeli tanks, anti-tank missiles and Apache helicopters.

[Earl Hartman]

Yes, I know that the Palestinians feel strongly. So do the Israelis.

The fact that Sharon is an "alleged" war criminal is irrelevant. If Sharon is a war criminal, so is Arafat, many times over. Try to think how the Israelis feel about him.

The Israelis are not responsible for the refugees of 1948; those people became refugees as a result of a war instigated by the Arabs, in defiance of the resolutions of the UN. It is an incredible chutzpah for the Arabs to bleat about how the Israelis do not obey the UN when the Arab flouting of the UN is what got us into this mess in the first place. Let the Arabs first admit that they were the first to defy the UN, then we'll talk. Had there been no war, there would have been no refugees.

There is no such city as East Jerusalem, or Arab East Jerusalem, or whatever you want to call it. The only time that Jerusalem has been divided in its entire history was during the 19 years of Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, which was itself illegal. Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority for the last 150 years and has never been the capital of any Palestinian state, since no such state has ever existed. It must also be remembered that prior to 1948 eastern Jerusalem was home to a large Jewish community. When the eastern part of the city fell to the Jordanians the Jews were all driven out and all traces of Jewish life in that part of the city were systematically eradicated. It is an insult and a travesty for the Palestinians to call Jerusalem "occupied territory" as though the Jews have no right to be there. The city has never, in its entire history, been under the control of any entity called "Palestine" and it has never been the capital of anything except when under Jewish control.

Regarding Resoluton 242, it is commonly believed that it requires Israel to withdraw from all of the territories "occupied" in the 1967 war, but this is not true. It calls upon Israel to withdraw from "territories", not "the territories" or "all the territories". This wording was deliberate, since everyone recognized at the time that the Arabs had again, just as they had in 1948, forced Israel into a war of self-defense because of their ongoing effort to destroy it. The Arabs were the aggressors in 1967 just as they were in 1948, and they must accept responsibility for that fact.

Regarding the intifada, there is plenty of evidence that it was planned long before Sharon's "provocaton". Whether Arafat is solely or mainly reponsible for it is another question, but it was not a spontaneous uprising. If you don't want to believe that, fine. What IS clear, though, is that Arafat never made any attempt whatsoever to clamp down on terrorism as Olso required him to do; indeed it is now obvious that he personally approved payments to people responsible for murdering Israelis, to say nothing of the Karina A arms ship. He was a terrorist, is a terrorist, and will always be a terrorist.

Anyway, etc., etc. If you want more information, check out the link I posted upthread.

FWIW, I believe that there will eventually be a settlement based on a territorial compromise, in which neither side will get all that they want, and that in the end the Palestinians will get their state in some form.

However, one thing is certain: the refugees are not going to be reptatriated into Israel except for perhaps a token number. The refugee population has been inflated as a result of all kinds of fraud, and there is no way of knowing how many of the people who claim to be refugees actually are. In any case, for the Palestinians to insist on this shows their bad faith, since everyone knows that it is just a ploy to innundate Israel with hostile Arabs who will act as a fifth column when the "final war of extermination" is launched. There will be compensation, but there will be no repatriation. In these discussions, Israel will also certainly bring up the issue of compensation for the more than 700,000 Jewish refugees the Arabs drove out of the Arab countries after 1948. These people were robbed of everything they owned and simply thrown out, to find refuge in Israel. The Jewish assets that the Arabs stole will more than offset whatever is owed to the Palestinians.

[Ben Bartlett]

I agree that the refugees won't be returned; the Palestinians are going to have to forget about that. As I said, the article doesn't reflect my views, I just thought it was a good way to take a look at what Palestinians think about the situation.

What IS clear, though, is that Arafat never made any attempt whatsoever to clamp down on terrorism as Olso required him to do; indeed it is now obvious that he personally approved payments to people responsible for murdering Israelis, to say nothing of the Karina A arms ship.

This is true. I don't defend Arafat; he's been a lousy leader, and has done plenty of terrible things (unfortunately, the way things are now, if he goes away, someone worse will take his place). I'm just pointing out there's a lot of blame on both sides, and that a lot of innocent people on both sides are suffering, and that both sides see themselves as victims (which doesn't help the problem any). Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the problems Israel faces, and the behavior of Arafat and the PLO. The reason I'm emphasizing the Palestinian side is not because I sympathize solely with them, but just because their side isn't heard enough over here. I feel it's important to understand both sides to be able to get a good grasp on the problem. On the issue itself, I actually agree with the liberal Israelis. On the other hand, I think the military action on the West Bank was probably a bad idea. Regardless of any moral justification, it just made a bad situation worse. A few years ago, when I knew absolutely nothing about the situation, I wouldn't have taken such a nuanced stance (more than likely, I would've just agreed with whatever Israel did). So I'm just trying to illustrate the less-often-heard side (at least in this country... Europe, on the other hand, could stand to learn more about the Israeli side).

[Iain]

Originally posted by Earl Hartman
That's fine except for the "Israelis expel Palestinians" part. There would have been no refugees if the Arabs had accepted the UN partiton resolution. They didn't, and gambled everything on a war. They lost. When there is a war, there are refugees. If you don't want refugees, don't start a war. The Arabs have only themselves to blame.

There is no moral equivalency between defeated aggressors and their intended victims, and it is evidence of the moral myopia of the world at large, as evidenced by that silly cartoon, that people think that there is.

Palestinian leaders turned down the UN resolution, the palestinian people did not. I doubt that the voice of the palestinian people is represented by an level of leadership within their body politic. the largest single age group of Palestinians are those between the ages of 18 and 25; people who weren't even alive when the partiton was offered. You're making a bit of a broad argument, and although it carries some weight (yes the Palestinians screwed up) I don't think it's as convincing as you think (why should the children pay for the sins of the father).

On a seperate point, the problem for Israel is not national defence so much as it is civilian defence. As I stated in a previous post, Israel could quite easily put down the various nations bordering it with little or no difficulty. Israels borders are -for the purpose of this argument- set in stone. They cannot however intercept terrorist suicide attacks, not with all the bombs and guns you can shake a stick at. The recent occupations won't have the desired effects, and the terrorists will come back bigger and better than ever. As cliched as this sounds, the Israelis are fighting an idea. War simply won't work unless you annihalate the population or dissipate them. The best bet for the Israel is to attack the idea. Unfortunately, I don't know how to kill an Idea, unfortunately, nobody does.

[Michael Plank]

The problems inherent in fighting an idea have occurred to me in another scenario. Our "War on Terrorism." Hmm, killing terrorists is one thing. Eliminating a military tactic? What? We should have called WWII the "War on Blitzkrieg" or something, hey? In fact, one could argue that killing innocent folks along with the terrorists could be more likely to inflame the hatred that causes terrorism, not alleviate it...

Sorry for the off-topic post, but this really applies just as much to Israel since they've been fighting their own kind of "War on Terrorism" for a helluva long time now. I just wonder how realistic an idea it is.

Michael Plank

[Earl Hartman]

I agree that the Arabs, in the aggregate, are reponsible for the rejection of the UN resolutions that led to the conflict as we know it now; the question is: can the "Palestinians" be blamed for this? Trying to portray this as a war between Israel and the Palestinians only is a clever sleight-of-hand trick used by Arab propagandists. If the conflict can be portrayed as a war between the Israeli "Goliath" and the Palestinian "David" (a cute co-opting of a Jewish hero for the sake of anti-Jewish propaganda) then any reasonable person would say "Gee, look at those horrible warmongering Israelis crushing the poor helpless Palestinians". This distortion of reality is one of the major victories of Arab propaganda.

The plain fact of the matter, however, is that the war against Israel has always been a pan-Arab war, in which the Palestinian terrorist organizations, themselves creations of the Arab League, have been used to portray the Palestinians as the vanguard of the Arab nation in its war against the Jews. Prior to 1967, however, there was little or no talk about the fact that the Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank") or the Egyptian occupation of Gaza deprived the Palestinians of their political independence, nor was there any attempt to create a state there, which was the original intent of the UN partition resolution which the Arabs rejected. The reason for this is very, very simple: there is no historical evidence for the existence of any indpendent state/nation within the larger Arab world known as "Palestine" or the "Palestinians". Palestinian nationalsim is an entirely modern creation, a result of European imperialism, the Israeli defeat of the Arabs, the refusal of the Arab countries (except for Jordan) to allow the refugees to be integrated into their countries, and the need to create propaganda to influence public opinion. If it is a war of the entire Arab world against one single small Jewish state (which is what it is), then all reasonable people would side with the Jews. If it can be portrayed as racist genocide by the Jews against a small, defenseless, unarmed nation which was quietly minding its own business until it was suddenly run off its land by a bunch of armed European interlopers, then, well, that's a different story, isn't it?

Under the Turks, the Arab countries we know today did not exist. They were created when the British and the French carved up the carcass of the Ottoman Empire and used the newly liberated lands as an arena for playing out their own imperialist competition for spheres of influence. Under the Ottomans, the geopgraphic area known as Palestine was divided into various administrative areas and was never a coherent political unit. Syrian nationalists have always considered it to be nothing more than southern Syria, and they still do so today. As a matter of fact, the Syrians never forgave the French for carving out an independent Lebanon from the body of Syria as a means of protecting the indigenous Christian population from Muslim depradations; they still consider it part of Syria, which explains their continued occupation of it (in defiance of UN and Arab League resolutions, natch).

My point is that the only reason that the Palestinians, as a cohesive national/political enity, may be able to escape blame for the 1948 debacle is because at that time they were not considered by the other Arabs to be an independent group capable of, or having the right to, make their own decisions. Quite simply, they were not considered a separate nation, either by the Arabs or anyone else. While Palestinian nationalism has become real, it is primarily the result of the clash of Jewish nationalism and Arab nationalism in Israel/Palestine.

Finally, I'm not sure terrorism can be dignified as an "idea". It is a type of warfare, but I'm not sure it can be described as a philosophy, unless you are a total nihilist. This kind of terrorism can be defeated the way similar racist and fascist movements have been defeated in the past: by relentlessly pursuing the terrorists and killing them. If we can do it in Afghanistan, half a world away, then the Israelis can do it next door.

[Ben Bartlett]

A good post, Earl. Let's also not forget that for all their talk of solidarity with the Palestinians, the other Arab countries won't allow them to naturalize into their countries, instead forcing them to stay in refugee camps. Without being able to find a new home for themselves, naturally the refugees focus on their former homes, which is convenient for most of the Arab regimes, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict helps to keep their peoples' focus away from their own countries' problems. If the other Arab countries really cared about the plight of the Palestinians as much as they claim to, they'd actually do something to help them instead of just letting them sit in camps and stew.

[Earl Hartman]

Well, Ben, if your goal was the destruction of Israel, what better way to keep the pot boiling?

[spartanmachine]

This kind of terrorism can be defeated the way similar racist and fascist movements have been defeated in the past: by relentlessly pursuing the terrorists and killing them.

Earl, Earl, Earl, and I thought we were actually getting somewhere here. Do you think there was any propoganda in what you just posted. Think about it, you're telling us that the Arabs are all bent on the destruction of Israel, and the innocent Israelis are simply just trying to defend themselves against evil.

And if all that the Israelis are doing is going after known terrorists, then how about all the people who are now homeless after the incurrence into Jenin, Ramallah, etc..., How about the casualties ? How about that Israel continues to occupy some land that the UN does not recognize as theirs ?
This is way too complicated to point the finger at one party. Yes , there are many Arab forces that exist solely for the destruction of Israel and don't see any point to negotiating, but to lump everyone together as extremists ? The Arab nations have different agendas and cannot all be lumped together.
Again all this serves is to take our minds off an actual solution and to point fingers at one another so that the men in power can continue their symphony of destruction.

[Ben Bartlett]

I just wanted to add a couple of things. First, a reply to something I missed earlier in Earl's post:

Finally, I'm not sure terrorism can be dignified as an "idea". It is a type of warfare, but I'm not sure it can be described as a philosophy, unless you are a total nihilist. This kind of terrorism can be defeated the way similar racist and fascist movements have been defeated in the past: by relentlessly pursuing the terrorists and killing them. If we can do it in Afghanistan, half a world away, then the Israelis can do it next door.

There are a couple of things that make this different from Afghanistan. First off, the fact that Afghanistan is a half a world away makes things easier for us... it's a lot harder for Al Qaeda to target America than it is for Hamas to target Israel. Secondly, Al Qaeda did not have widespread support in Afghanistan, a lot of people didn't like the Taliban regime, and it was clear the U.S. wasn't trying to take over Afghanistan... it's a lot easier to wage a war if the locals see you as liberators as opposed to conquerors. Thirdly, the very fact that it's a type of warfare and not a philosophy makes it harder to get rid off, since there's no group of people you can point to and say, "These are all the terrorists that exist." Anyone could resort to those tactics. Fourthly, the harder Israel cracks down, the more desperate the Palestinians get, and the more likely they are to resort to terrorist methods. Short of genocide or sticking all the Palestinians in internment camps, military action is not going to solve the problem. The violence from one side just feeds into the violence on the other side. "Cycle of violence" is an apt term indeed.

Another problem is that the distrust is so high, that the extremists rule the day. Let's say, for instance, that 95% of the Palestinians wanted peace, but 5% wanted the destruction of Israel. Guess which side would win? That's right, the 5%. Because all it would take is a few suicide bombers to get Israel to react, and Israel's reaction would then anger the other 95% of the Palestinians. It just makes things over there that much more difficult.

[Earl Hartman]

Save me your holier-than-thou lecture, spartan. Some things actually are very simple.

Personally, I believe that there are plenty of Palestinians who do want peace and would be more than satisfied with a compromise solution. I also think that there are plenty of people in the Arab world in general who have given up on the idea of destroying Israel. As Sadat said, "Egypt is tired of fighting for the Palestinians to the last Egyptian soldier". When those Palestinians who really want peace find their voice and send Arafat and his gang packing, there will be peace. Either that, or Arafat is going to have to fight it out with his own extremists, if he really wants peace. There is no other way. Right now, the extremists are in control, and there arppears to be no will on the part of Arafat to stop them.

Wars end when one side accepts defeat. Egypt bore the brunt of the Arab defeats, finally decided that the game wasn't worth the candle, and gave up. The Allies didn't negotiate the Germans and the Japanese into peace in WWII, they beat them into submission. That's what war is, unfortunately.

The historical record shows that it is the Arabs who have continually chosen war instead of peaceful negotiated solutions. Don't you know any history at all? The Israelis came into posession of the "occupied territories" in a war of self-defense that was launched by the Arabs for the purpose of destroying Israel. It is a simple historical fact. In such a situation, should not the defeated aggressors pay a price for their aggression? Yet all people do is point at Israel as though they are the ones who are causing all of the trouble. The "occupied territories" are not the CAUSE of Arab hosility towards Israel, they are the RESULT of Arab hostility to Israel. When the Arabs demand that Israel give up all of the disputed territory, what they are saying, in effect, is that they should not be held accountable for the results of their failed aggression. Sorry, but the world does not work like that. There is no way that Israel should be expected to retreat back to the lines of 1967, which the Arabs never recognized in the first place. Everyone makes a big deal out of the Saudi plan, since it seems to indicate that the Arabs are at last ready to accept Israel. Well, they shouldn't expect to be congratulated just becasue they have decided that politicide and genocide is no longer the way to go. Any reasonable person would just say "Well, it's about damned time."

After WWII, Germany was occupied and cut in half. When they finally showed that they were no longer a threat to the rest of Europe, the occupation ended. Finally after 50 years, the country was made whole again. But this was only allowed to happen after they had shown their peaceful intentions.

The "West Bank", when it was under the control of the Jordanians, was used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against Israel within the ceasefire lines that existed prior to June of 1967, that is, before there were any "occupied territories" at all. In exchange for promises of peace and an end to terrorism, Israel withdrew its forces from some of these areas and allowed Arafat to set up an embryonic state, based on the obviously mistaken assumption that he would act like the leader of a state and not like the terrorist he is. Prior to the "Al Aksa intifada", 98% of the population of the West Bank was living under PA control.

So what happened? Instead of honoring his agreements, Arafat turned the PA areas into one big terrorist training camp and arms depot. You are crazy if you think that Israel is just going to sit around and let people waltz in and blow them up while they are sitting down to Passover dinner. Arafat either cannot, or will not, control those elements that are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It does not matter which. Nor does it matter that those who are sworn to Israel's destruction are incapable of effecting their design. There is no government on earth that would allow these kinds of indiscriminate attacks. What do you think would happen if a bunch of terrorists operating out of Canada or Mexico started blowing people up in, say, Texas or Wisconsin? We would send in the army so fast it would make your head spin, and nobody would be bleating about how "there is no military solution". And we wouldn't leave until we knew that the attacks would stop. In cases like this, a political solution is always preceded by a military one.

As far as Jenin is concerned, why not get mad at the PLO terrorists who used the camp as a base to conduct attacks on Israelis? What happened was very sad, but not because Israel indiscriminately targeted civilians. If they had wanted to, they could have done what the Russians did in Grozny: surround the place, give the civilians 48 hours to leave, bomb the place flat, and then shoot anything that moved. Instead, they fought house to house and lost 23 soldiers to booby traps and enemy fire. You tell me what other army would have endangered their own soldiers in this way so as to do their best to minimize civilian casualties in a necessary military operaton. Reports from Afghanistan indicate that more than 2,000 civilians were killed by US bombing. Any UN resolutions about US war crimes? Any protests? Any "fact-finding" missions? Any front-page denunciations? Nope. Dead silence.

Anyway, like I said, I believe that there will eventually be a territorial compromise that will lead to a Palestinian state. Once the Palestinians REALLY show that they want peace and that their agreements actually are worth the paper they are printed on, it should take about a week.

[Iain]

Earl,

You talk about the 'Arabs' as if the term is representative of every single person -bar the Israelis- in the middle east. This is a broad and deceptive use of the word, and the conclusions you are trying to draw are far too narrow. The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, ARE NOT representative of the viewpoint of the majority of the population. Nobody ever assumed that sin fein or the IRA represented the common interests of the Catholic population, and they certainly didn't draw from such a definition that the right thing for the Irish Catholic population to do was to roll over and except whatever terms the British dictated to them. Just like every other person in the world, all the average Palestinian wants is food, shelter, and peace of mind. Fat happy people don't like to fight, it's just a fact of nature. Miserable displaced people whose houses get buldozed and who have little to loose, however, are much more apt to take up arms. the West Bank is somewhere were a good dose of good old fashioned McDonalds diplomacy might actually do some good. Make people want to stop throwing away their lives and give them what they need to lead a decent life, and you take away the support base for radical groups and pave the way for democratic self government.

[Amir]

Oof I realy want to leave this topic
As I already wrote. In my failing, I am an Israeli. I admit I see the situation from one side only, and not from a far. But on the other side, I am much more aware of it. Half the news-paper I read every weekend includes articles and editorials about the situation. And so naturally, I know more facts then most of you. I heard interviews with soldiers who were in Jenin, and with Palestinians, and not only a short edition (local news as opposed to world wide news) with the spokes-people. Further, I know the impossible geography of the situation, which makes some ideas ridicules.
However, Blaming me in propaganda is quite out of proportion, as I am actively filtering & sifting the facts from the statements I read in the papers (I don’t believe any politician, especially not in this region)

To Ian - McDonalds diplomacy
As I already wrote, this Intifada broke when the unemployment rate in the west-bank was the lowest ever (around 10%), the Palestinian economy had an unprecedented flourish. So, while used to agree with you, and be certain at least half the problem is economics and life-quality gap. The facts prove us both wrong. :smash:


Many of you claim the "average Palestinian" (I hate this idea of average person, he never exists :-) ) doesn't support the armed straggle against Israel or at least, not the way this straggle is fought – harming innocents and would prefer peace negotiations. Yet at the same breath you claim Arrafat is being dragged after the street opinion.
To the best of my knowledge, reading various newspapers, Polls indicate there is a huge support in continued Intifada and terror against Israel, to the extent of about 80% of the Palestinian population. I have also seen lots of interviews, not only with the Palestinian spokesman, but with the man in the street as well, again – a large majority for the supporters of violent resistance.

As I already wrote. Trying to figure out who has the “total right” is pointless & fruitless. And I am saying it as an Israeli. Both sides have so many claims and counter claims, it would take years to hear them…

However, I do find a moral difference between most of the Israeli community and most of the Palestinian community. You may claim it is propaganda.
But I believe there is a strong difference between someone who supports harm the civilian population, and wishes a peace agreement in his conditions with no compromise as one could see in the article Ben copied, the conditions stated actually means there will be a Palestinian state in the west bank and Gaza, and a second Palestinian (or at best dual national) state instead of Israel.
I believe such a people have lower moral grounds then a people who whish no harm to the other civilian population. Not that no harm is done, on the contrary, innocent lives are lost because of my people security measures (and I did give a few example of Israeli extremists in previous posts). But the large majority of Israeli public is willing to compromise peacefully.

I believe the Palestinians are people just like me. Yet it seems their public opinion is bent upon a so called “just” solution to the problem. And they forget such a solution is not realistic, as Israel cannot agree to it. Not without committing suicide. In this approach the Palestinians are breaching the basic ideas of negotiating an agreement: compromise.

As for Sharon and his conduct. I can’t say exactly what happened when he went to the temple-mount, I was in Japan at the time, practicing Budo and vacationing :-)
However, even in Japan, I have read the riots started a couple of days before Sharon’s visit. And while the visit can not be considered a conciliatory attempt, I believe trying to blame Sharon on the violent insurrection has already been researched and proven false even by his political enemies.
I have already said I disagree with Sharon’s political way, I do not think he is willing to make the necessary compromise from my people –the Israeli side. He has stated this himself more then once. Yet, he does wish to get a cease-fire to this region, and if the cease-fire will continue, I honestly believe the Israeli people will replace him with a more compromise bent prime minister. Where as, if the violence continues, either Sharon or another non-compromising right wing leader will win. As you can understand, I hope for the former.

Amir
Wishing for peace and prosperity for all in the middle east.

[spartanmachine]

Ok I don't want to continue arguing here, it would be pointless.
I just want to make these points.

The historical record shows that it is the Arabs who have continually chosen war instead of peaceful negotiated solutions. Don't you know any history at all?

Earl , you seem like a really intelligent guy, surely you see the propaganda involved in the first sentence.
Secondly , you're resorting to name calling of sorts because someone else doesnt accept your opinion, don't I know any history at all? Well I don't know ALL history but that doesn't mean I don't know some.

Anyway I wish you well and to keep thinking about what's going on. Don't let your judgement become so clouded.

Save me your holier-than-thou lecture, spartan. Oh and by the way it's spartanmachine :)

Iain, good post.

Half the news-paper I read every weekend includes articles and editorials about the situation. And so naturally, I know more facts then most of you.

Amir, don't believe everything you read. You think you know more facts, trust me the media is quite biased.

Be well guys.

[Earl Hartman]

Iain:

The views of groups of people are only discernible to outsiders throught the actions and pronouncements of their ostensible leaders. Since most of the Arab states are dictatorships of greater or lesser degrees of oppressiveness, it is quite impossible to know what percentage of the people in those countries may or may not be in favor of a peaceful negotiated solution that address the concerns of all parties. We can only go by what their leaders say and do. Polls can be misleading, but there are polls that indicate that a preponderant majority of Palestinian Arabs, in the >90% range, are still not reconcliled to Israel's existence. So, I cannot accept at face value your assumption that a majority of the Arabs desire peace with Israel. Of course they want peace, but peace WITH ISRAEL? That is still very much an open question, as far as I am concerned. Arab propaganda is very sophisticated and their spokesmen seem very reasonable, but the message is alway the same: Israel must retreat to the 1948 armistice lines and agree to allow all of the refugees to return to their original homes. That is nothing more or less a demand that Israel agree to snuff out its own existence. That anyone can think this is reasonable is insane.

I do not deny that homeless people will be desperate. My point is: how did they get that way? It is a simple historical fact that the refusal of the Arabs to accept the UN partition agreement, their refusal to countenance in any way, shape, or form the existence of Israel, and their subsequent attempt to destroy it, resulted in their defeat and the creation of the "refugee problem". Everybody seems to think that Israel is the only party that can, or should, "solve" this problem. It is that fundamental assumption with which I totally disagree. I agree that the plight of the refugees is sad, but the "problem" will not be solved in the way the Arabs want: by pretending that 1947 and everything subsequent to it never happened.

I must repeat that with the establishment of the PA and the Israeli withdrawals, more than 90% of Palestinians were living under PA control. Money was pouring in from Europe and the US, and even from Israel, in the form of tax revenues owed to the PA under the Oslo agreements. So what did Arafat do with the money? He embezzelled it, built fancy villas for himself and his cronies, and bought tons and tons of weapons from Iran. It was well within his power to materially improve the lot of the people living under his control. He chose instead to turn the place into one big kleptocracy, a police state armed to the teeth where terrorists, many of whom worked directly for Arafat himself, operated with impunity. There is no way any of this could have happened without his active collusion, or, at the very least, his benign neglect. Either way, as the "President" of Palestine, he is responsible.

I agree that if people have a better life they will be less likely to turn to violence, and I agree that everything that is possible should be done to alleviate their suffering, short of requiring Israel to endanger itself.

Spartanmachine, you say I purvey propaganda, but you do not explain what you mean by propaganda. I have said repeatedly that I believe that there must be a territorial compromise, that a Palestinian state in some shape or form will eventually be created, and that this will entail significant concessions from Israel (territory), which must be met by equal concessions from the Arabs (REALLY accepting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state de jure and not just grudgingly accepting the fact of its de facto existence; recognizing Jewish rights in Jerusalem and other holy places, and dropping their insistence on the "right of return" and accepting compensation instead).

What I do not accept are the unvoiced assumptions of what is called "conventional wisdom": that the existence of Israel is the cause of the problem, that since Israel has won all of the wars that the Arabs have forced it to fight it must obviously be the aggressor and so must make all of the concessions; that if only the Israelis weren't "oppressing" the Palestinians (that is, defending itself from Palestinian terror) everything would be fine.

Anyway, I've said pretty much all I am going to say on this subject on this forum for now. Let's get back to budo.