babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Baghdad born Israeli-Jew (historian) debunks Zionist myth

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Baghdad born Israeli-Jew (historian) debunks Zionist myth
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 15 May 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Where I differ from the great majority of Israelis is that I openly acknowledge that Israel’s creation caused a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. It is important for Palestinians to have Israelis acknowledge at least a share of the moral responsibility for the Nakba, for the catastrophe of 1948 and, more specifically, for creating the refugee problem. But I don’t go on from there to say that Israel should be dismantled in order to redress this injustice.

Voice of the 'Wrecking Ball': Interview with Israeli Historian Avi Shlaim


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 16 May 2004 12:27 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't understand what is so revealing about the above quote? What myth are you talking about? Do you think most Israelis deny that Israel has any responsibility for creating the refugee problem? The 150,000 people that protested for the pull out of the territories know that. They even know that the Israeli government failed and continued to make mistakes but at least Avi Shlaim will admit what many other scholars will deny.

This something to few people are willing to acknowledge

quote:
I have never questioned the legitimacy of the Zionist movement or the state of Israel. Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jews and the Jews are entitled, like any other nation, to independence and statehood.

Where I differ from the great majority of Israelis is that I openly acknowledge that Israel’s creation caused a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. It is important for Palestinians to have Israelis acknowledge at least a share of the moral responsibility for the Nakba, for the catastrophe of 1948 and, more specifically, for creating the refugee problem. But I don’t go on from there to say that Israel should be dismantled in order to redress this injustice.

Israel is a fact, and you do not redress one wrong by committing another wrong. The only realistic solution is not absolute justice, but relative justice and that means the partition of Palestine. After 1967 there was a real opportunity for the partition of Palestine and Israel rejected in favour of creeping annexation.

I therefore make a clear distinction between Israel in the pre- 1967 borders – which is entirely legitimate in my eyes – and the Zionist colonial project across the Green Line which is entirely illegal and illegitimate.

In a word, I would describe myself as a Post-Zionist: Zionism had achieved its basic objective by 1967 and now the occupation should be ended so both Israelis and Palestinians can get on with their lives.


As well I'd like to comment on the following. Sorry for not putting it in any particular order.

quote:
The only fair settlement is a negotiated settlement leading to an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with minor territorial adjustments. In other words, it would have to be a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

The contours of such a settlement are clear. They were outlined in the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan of 1995. We also have the Clinton parameters of December 2000 for an independent Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 94% - 96% of the West Bank, with a capital in East Jerusalem. The Clinton parameters were the basis for the negotiations held in Taba in January 2001. At Taba the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators came closer to agreement on a final settlement than at any point before or since. So a fair settlement would have to build on the understandings reached at Taba.


This something too few people are willing to acknowledge both people on the right and left wing radicals. This is a flat out rejection of the bi-national state. Yet and his premises do hold up. They are strong and can not really be argued. If labour or Meretz were supported more in Israel especially by left wing radicals then there would be hope.


Some other important things I'd like to comment about

quote:
There was an element of racism, or at least arrogance on the part of the Ashkenazi elite, in wanting to ‘raise’ the Oriental Jews to their level of civilisation. This prevalent attitude meant that Jews from Arab countries did not dwell on their Arab heritage, but strove to integrate themselves into their new society.

I do agree with him that there is an Ashankzi elite but so what if Jews from arab land strove to integrate themselves, so did French Jews, Russian Jews, German Jews, Spanish Jews but it didn't help they were all beaten and kicked out anyway hence Israel had to be created.

quote:
One problem is that Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens.

true but it is important to highlight that this is no worse then in most western states. For example native Canadians and Israel is trying hard to fix this problem.

quote:
Another problem arises in the Occupied Territories. The occupation calls Israeli democracy into question as it involves imposing coercive rule over another 3.5 million Arabs…. I would prefer to describe Israel as a flawed democracy and one which is increasingly going the route of South African with its apartheid practices.

Sad but true at this point.

quote:
No. I am deeply pessimistic about the future precisely because there is no hope either from the Left or from the pragmatic Right. The Labor Party is in complete disarray and does not offer a coherent alternative to the policies of the Likud government. The greatest mistake that Shimon Peres made was to take the Labor Party into the coalition government headed by Ariel Sharon.


True but I'm not pessimistic I think initiatives like Yossi Belin's Geneva accords and Ami Ayalons "Peoples voice" have a lot of potential any one who wants to hear more about the peoples voice I invite them to come out at 8pm Wednesday may 19th at holy blossom synagogue Toronto. Sari Nussibeh will be there as well I think it is just south of Lawrence.

[quote} Israelis have always tried to silence criticism by claiming that the motives behind it are anti-semitism. But in most cases it is fair- minded people who see the suffering of the Palestinians, and their sympathy is naturally on their side as the underdog. Sympathy for the Palestinians is not evidence of anti-semitism. I, for example, feel doubly guilty towards the Palestinians.

I feel guilty as an Israeli for all the suffering Israel has inflicted upon them; and I feel guilty as an Englishman because of Britain’s long record of betrayal going all the way back to the Balfour Declaration. The Palestinians are the real victims of this conflict, and they deserve all the international sympathy and support that they can get. In short, it is essential today, more than ever, to make a clear distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.[/quote]
The first of the 2 paragraph maybe true but I do feel as if it is sometimes hard to distinguish between the two. Especially with all the nazification and demonization of Israel you see in the press. Pictures of Sharon eating babies and such. As well as the flat condemnation Like killing Yassin, it certainly was a stupid and wrong move but it shouldn't be condemned Yassin is no Dali Lama. This only serves to demonize Israel.

As far as the sympathy for Palestinians this is fair. As long as you don't support violence and you make sure those who are responsible for there suffering pay. This doesn't mean by causing the other side to suffer. As well you need to make sure everyone who is responsible pays. Just as was outlined in the interview Israel is not solely responsible.

quote:
Her book in Hebrew is called the ‘The Sword of the Dove’, implying that Zionism was an innocent white dove that was forced to carry a sword by the brutal and fanatical Arab predators in the neighbourhood. That is a one-sided view of the causes of the conflict which portrays the Arabs as the aggressors and the Jews as the innocent victims.

But the Zionist movement involved aggression against the local Arabs from the start. It had to use force by definition as the Arabs were not just going to willingly make way for the Zionists.


Sure of course. So now the local Israeli Arabs are the dove with the sword I don't buy either both sides have committed horrible unjustified acts and both sides are responsible for making the situation worse.

quote:
I was sad to discover that Israel’s conduct in 1948 was not as unblemished and noble as my teachers had taught me at school. In particular, it came as a surprise to learn that the IDF did not always live up to high moral standards or to its own mantra about ‘the purity of arms’.

There were countless cases of mistreatment of Palestinian civilians; there were forcible expulsions; there were massacres; and there were even some cases of gang rape. All this is deeply disturbing and upsetting. The evidence that Benny Morris and others have produced shows quite conclusively that in 1948 Israel practiced what today we would call ‘ethnic cleansing’.

My reaction to these findings is one of deep sorrow and sympathy for the victims. It therefore came as a great shock to hear Benny Morris, in a recent interview in Ha’aretz, blithely condemn the victims for their own misfortunes and exonerate Israel of any responsibility for the war crimes its forces committed in 1948. I still respect Benny Morris’s scholarship on the 1948 war but I find his current position on the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem morally repugnant. To my mind war crimes can never be condoned or justified whatever the circumstances.


Everything said so far is correct so I suppose the reasoning behind this is logical. Since it is then yes Israel should pay for those crimes and we can not shrug off or ignore crimes like these anywhere. If we are going to go after the war criminals though I think we should start with the worest. There are far worest ones in many other countries as immoral as Israel is described here it is still more moral then most other countries. Certainly more moral then all of Europe including France with their elitist moral view. And we all know Israel has killed way less people the America, Russian or Chinese governments and more moral then most African governments which unfortunately is the saddest thing how it is ignored.

quote:
The New History had a limited influence on the teaching of history in Israeli schools during the time of Oslo, particularly Benny Morris’s findings on the origins of the Palestinian refugee problem. The traditional Zionist version of the conflict was not discarded, but Israeli school kids were invited to think about how they would have felt if they had been Arabs in 1948.

This approach created a space for discussion and debate, and generated some empathy for ‘the other’. But after the Likud returned to power in 2001, the Minister of Education ordered the liberal history textbooks to be discarded and replaced with books which conveyed only Jewish and Zionist values. Thus, during the last three years, there has been a regression in the quality of secondary school education about the Arabs.


I completed my high schooling in Israel in 97. I was not aware of this and it is really sad. I Always knew Limor Livnat was an stupid, but I didn't know she would be this evil.

Over all this is a fantastic interview both the left and the right should have a closer look at the thoughts and ideas that were brought up in this interview.

[ 16 May 2004: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 16 May 2004 12:39 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Voice of the 'Wrecking Ball': Interview with Israeli Historian Avi Shlaim



Nice piece. some funny editing, but mostly good stuff.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 17 May 2004 01:07 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Its apologist balloney.

Sure, the Jews in Israel are carpet baggers so what?

Why in 2004 isn't there peace?

Why won't there be peace in 2014?

Arafat was never there to negotiate to a two state solution.

Its not about Israel and Palestine its about driving the Jews out of the Middle East.

Regardless of what happened in the 40-50-60-70-80-90's the fundies can't have peace between Israel and Palestine.

The Secularists and the Moderates passed on their chance.

The Palestine francise is too important to keeping the "Arab Street" angry and full of rage.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 12:28 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm glad you don't believe in apologies. Perhaps you should check the wealth of facts that contradict your view of the situation. Even an ardent Zionist like Morris does not dispute the facts of the Nakba, he just thinks it was right. He even has gone as far as to say Ben Gurion did not go far enough in the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Israel.

quote:
I don't understand what is so revealing about the above quote? What myth are you talking about? Do you think most Israelis deny that Israel has any responsibility for creating the refugee problem? The 150,000 people that protested for the pull out of the territories know that. They even know that the Israeli government failed and continued to make mistakes but [i]at least Avi Shlaim will admit what many other scholars will deny.[i/]

2 things:

1) It is this last that is most important. It may be that the majority of Israeli's have a more nunced understanding of the situation, this does not detract from the fact that this nuanced version is not taught in schools, were the 'innocent Israel' myth prevails. It is the official myth, whatever indiviual Israeli's may think.

The backdrop of justifications continue to inform the prevailing ideology, even if not all individuals believe them entirely.

2) The Zionist 'myth' is widely believed in North America still (See Jack01 above) despite the work of Pappe, Morris, Shlaim and others. Given the relative importance of the US in terms of supporting the long term objectives of the Israeli state, it is as important that even hard headed North American's like Jack01 be exposed to the actual history, even if the ideological walls that prevent them from thinking beyond their preset notions.

[ 18 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 May 2004 10:04 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I still don't understand what myth you arr talking about? There are narrow minded people who think that have done and can do no wrong but most Israelis don't think like that.

However the question is do you think that the Israeli's have no claim to Israel. Do you not think that there are any other parties, including the Palestinians that are responsible for this mess? The Palestinians share almost as large a responsibility in there own suffering as Israeli's maybe even more. Nobody is innocent. There were many times that both sides had opportunities to make peace so better times some worse times but both side have done things that were deconstructive to the achievement of any peace.

And anyways just to make things balance and the truth know before 1948 the Palestinians killed at least as many if not more Jews unjustly as Jews killed Palestinians unjustly.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 18 May 2004 10:19 AM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
However the question is do you think that the Israeli's have no claim to Israel.

We always seem to come back to this question. I'll answer again, just for fun. I think Israeli's have every claim to Israel. I don't think they have claim to Palestinian land.

As to your other point of other parties being part of the problem, of course there are other parties involved in the problem, but it is Israel that is the illegal occupier. Perhaps if they got out of Palestine, we would see who the trouble makers continue to be. It has to start there, in my opinion. As long as Israel is the occupier, the obvious question to me is, what do they really want, peace in Israel or to steal more land.


From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 18 May 2004 11:10 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I strongly support a unilateral withdrawal along with many others a sample of which had a huge protest this weekend. Will that make a difference I don't know.

Palestinians say the attacks will end the occupation ends. Israelis say the Occupation will end when the attacks end.

That’s why I think each has take immediate steps I don't think one justifies the other.

A lot of other people would probably start to through in history to justify themselves one way or another but if the above actions could be taken I think it would bring us closer to a real peace sooner. It is sadly still going to be a long process and there are no magical solutions like the bi-national state bull.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 18 May 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Today in 2004 is it really about Zionism for Israel?

I don't think so.

The Likuds on one side and the Islamic Fundies on the other.

We expect what?

I've never understood why Israel felt compeled to push and engage the Palestinians.

It was and is a failed strategy. The fence regardless of the line it follows is the best bad solution they can come up with.

Pull back from the settlements. DMZ the fence.

Then put the issues of Palestine and anything it is or isn't in the hands of the UN.

On no level should the Israelies engage the Palestians.

Let 2-3 years go by. Let the Palestinians run their own show. See what happens.

The 70% of secular Israel can then try going about their business without the insanity of the hard right in Israel and Islamic Fundies in Palestine.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 18 May 2004 03:12 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[QB]Today in 2004 is it really about Zionism for Israel?

Of course it is. Zionism is what keeps the settlements expanding which requires military protection which requires the oppression of the Palestinians, the bulldozing of their homes, etc. It is also Zionism that keeps Israel from acknowledging Palestinian right of return, from giving Occupied Palestine a civil administration that would give Palestinians protection under Israeli civil law - i.e. make them (even partial) citizens.


quote:
I've never understood why Israel felt compeled to push and engage the Palestinians.

A certain form of Zionism...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 18 May 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Justice:
However the question is do you think that the Israeli's have no claim to Israel.

Of course they have no claim to Israel. They got it through terrorism, lobbying international aggressors to help them, and ethnic cleansing. But, they're there now and, within the 1948 borders the UN said it was OK. So, you know, whatever--if they'd let the people they ethnically cleansed come back if they felt like, and if they were willing to let everyone for instance own land equally regardless of religion, I'd shrug and say you can't unbreak the egg.
Kind of like Canada that way--we have no claim to First Nations land, but we're here now, and if we would settle the land claims and generally come to a reasonable accommodation with the people that were here first, I'd shrug and say it's more or less OK for me to be here.

However, the UN does not say it's OK for the Israelis to be in the occupied territories. And they know that perfectly well, yet they continue to aggressively move more people into them who have no right to be there. That is ongoing ethnic cleansing, ongoing violation of the Geneva conventions, ongoing vile injustice. It's happening now, not sixty years ago. They should get the hell back out.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 May 2004 04:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
However the question is do you think that the Israeli's have no claim to Israel. Do you not think that there are any other parties, including the Palestinians that are responsible for this mess?

No. In that they are they are there now, and should be accomodated.

Yes. The UN, the US and Great Britain.

quote:
The Palestinians share almost as large a responsibility in there own suffering as Israeli's maybe even more. Nobody is innocent. There were many times that both sides had opportunities to make peace so better times some worse times but both side have done things that were deconstructive to the achievement of any peace.

I think that Palestinians are more or less the least guilty of any of the key players, inlcuding the Zionists, the UN, the US, and Great Britain. It is not as if the Palestinians invited mass Jewish immigration and then reneged on the deal. They were invaded cultrually, politically and militarily. That invasion was supported at first by Great Britain, and later the the USA. The UN blessed the invasion out of sympathy for the Jewish people because of the holocaust.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 19 May 2004 10:52 AM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
Another Zionist myth debunked:

"The 70% of secular Israel can then try going about their business without the insanity of the hard right in Israel and Islamic Fundies in Palestine."

http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/howrelisr.htm

"The fourth and second smallest group consists of those who define themselves as secular, some 20 percent of the Jewish population. These are people whose beliefs are secular. Their practices, on the other hand, may be quite similar to those of many traditionalists, only they maintain those practices for family and national reasons rather than accepted religious ones. The fact that Jewish religious observance has such a strong national component makes it a major component of Jews' national identity even if they no longer see themselves as believers in the Jewish religion."

yes, 20% rounded is 70%

or

"What is true is that almost all the elites in Israeli society ­ cultural, intellectual, political, and economic ­ are found within the secular 20 percent, so that they frame the picture that outsiders get of Israel. Moreover, that 20 percent is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi, either Jews from Eastern and Central Europe or descended from them, the ones who are most likely to know English, to have relatives in the diaspora, or to be contacted by journalists coming to the country, thus allowing this skewed picture to emerge."


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 19 May 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Liminal,

quote:
ISRAELIS SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE VIEWS ON RELIGION AND STATE
Yael Meyer
September 25, 2001

The overwhelming majority of the Israeli public supports equal treatment for all streams of Judaism. "Reform and Conservative should receive equal status as the Orthodox," responded 63% of Israelis polled during August 2001 by Dahaf Research Institute, a nationally recognized survey research institution in Israel. The Israel Religious Action Center commissioned the survey, which is the first in a series to be conducted periodically this year.

Additional highlights of the polling results include:
1.) 65% favor freedom of choice in marriage, including recognition of Reform, Conservative and civil wedding ceremonies.
2.) 56% favor recognition of Reform and Conservative conversions.
3.) Over 60% favor some form of opening of business and provision of public transportation on Shabbat.
4.) 63% favor reducing the disproportionate power of the religious political parties; 74% see no justification for this disproportionate power in the definition of Israel as a Jewish state.
5.) 76% prefer that their children attend the secular school system; 58% of these parents prefer that their children receive Jewish enrichment classes taught from a pluralist perspective.
6.) 62% favor the Supreme Court being the arbiter of issues of religion and state.
7.) 58% favor military service requirements for all yeshiva students; an additional 35% favor granting only a limited number of yeshiva students exemption from military service.



From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 19 May 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Likuds on one side and the Islamic Fundies on the other.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The Zionist Labour Party in Israel didn't do anything to stop settlement expansion while they were in power, so the Likudniks aren't solely to blame.

Militant Islamic fundamentalism has been a significant phenomenon in the region for only about 20-25 years.

The Palestinian people have been dispossessed since 1948.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
mjollnir
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5618

posted 19 May 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for mjollnir        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:

The overwhelming majority of the Israeli public supports equal treatment for all streams of Judaism

But that says it all, doesn't it?


From: NY | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 19 May 2004 04:59 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Al-Q,

quote:
Militant Islamic fundamentalism has been a significant phenomenon in the region for only about 20-25 years.

Thats why its too late. The "occupation" as its referred to here is past being an issue between the Israelies and the Palestinians.

Its bigger than that now.

Big Satan Little Satan.

I've got an idea. The current Israelie leader, Arafat and Bill Clinton with Jimmy Carter can all meet at Camp David to "discuss" peace.

Oh Wait, weve tried that.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 19 May 2004 05:24 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[QB]Al-Q,

Thats why its too late. The "occupation" as its referred to here is past being an issue between the Israelies and the Palestinians.


What a load of shite, frankly. The Occupation is still THE most fundamental issue between Israelies and Palestinians. Your Huntington-esque reductions notwithstanding, I recommend a trip to Occupied Palestinian Territory in order to ask a few Palestinians whether or not the Occupation is still an issue or not.

I suspect (from personal experience) that you will find a great many Palestinians fell that living under curfew, 24-hour surveillance, having guns pointed at them daily, having their homes and businesses bulldozed, being herded and humiliated like animals at checkpoints, watching their friends and family be killed and injured and living in a state of 'rightlessness' to be a very serious issue.

The attempt to move this issue into some vague ideological territory is a deflection from the exceedingly 'realistic' details that comprise the military Occupation of Palestinian territory and the Palestinian people.

It makes pithy TV commentary, or nice conversation at dinner parties, but it essentially results in a minimisation of the abuses visited on 3.5 million Palestinians on a daily basis.

But that, I suspect, is your intention.

[ 19 May 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 20 May 2004 11:17 AM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Courage,

Its not my intention to minimize or make fun of the situation.

Had the Palestinians choosen non-violent protest and had they negotiated in good faith, they "Palestinians" would have their own country and be living happy and prosperous lives.

Would the agreement be fair? No.

Would it address all grievences? No.

Would they "Palestinians" have held the higher moral ground and then been able to use that in future negotiations? Yes.

In 2004 what the Palestinians have is their choice.

Right now today the Palestinians could use the current violence to shame the Israelies to the peace table and drive for independence.

The Palestinians won't. With the next few days either a bus will blow up or a settler will be gunned down. A few days after that the Israelies will send in a gun ship and another 20 Palestinians will die.

Its insanity to the nth degree. A meat grinder on automatic.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 May 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Had the Palestinians choosen non-violent protest and had they negotiated in good faith, they "Palestinians" would have their own country and be living happy and prosperous lives.

I think yesterday's events in Gaza have shown how far peaceful protest would have got the Palestinians.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 20 May 2004 12:12 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Black_dog,

If the Palestinians choose to, they can use the violence that occoured yesterday as their lever to take the moral high ground and shame the Israelies through politcal measures to negotiate to the Palestinians advantage.

The Palestinians won't.

I had thought in the past that they would want their own country with their own self rule.

I don't think it has anything to do with that anymore?


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
liminal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5617

posted 20 May 2004 12:16 PM      Profile for liminal        Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack01:


"Had the Palestinians choosen non-violent protest and had they negotiated in good faith, they "Palestinians" would have their own country and be living happy and prosperous lives.

Would the agreement be fair? No.

Would it address all grievences? No.

Would they "Palestinians" have held the higher moral ground and then been able to use that in future negotiations? Yes.

In 2004 what the Palestinians have is their choice.

Right now today the Palestinians could use the current violence to shame the Israelies to the peace table and drive for independence."
--------------------------------------------------
Well, eradicated and pushed out of their homes, the Palestinians lay put for 20 years, waiting for the International Community to do them justice. Did it? No, the world wouldn't listen to their pleas. On the other hand, the International community rewarded violence and terrorism by granting terrorists a state and acknowledging it. If the high moral ground was the criterium, the republic of Israel wouldn't exist today. The violence today is far beyond atrocious, but we have , besides the main players, the civilized International Community to thank because they showed the world that legitimacy doesn't pay, only terrorism does.

[ 20 May 2004: Message edited by: liminal ]


From: the hole I just crawled out of | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 May 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"If the Palestinians choose to, they can use the violence that occoured yesterday as their lever to take the moral high ground and shame the Israelies through politcal measures to negotiate to the Palestinians advantage."

But the Israeli government has no shame. All the international condemnations in the world won't change its behaviour. Only if the U.S. would free itself from the political power of the Israeli lobby and take a truly neutral stance will Israel have the incentive to change. Israel has ignored every UN resolution, continues to violate international law by settling occupied land, continues to hold itself above the law through extrajudicial killings and the like, and continues to deny the reality of the occupation.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 May 2004 01:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Had the Palestinians choosen non-violent protest and had they negotiated in good faith, they "Palestinians" would have their own country and be living happy and prosperous lives.

Of course the fact that Palestinians devoted themselves to peaceful protest for more than 20 years has no bareing on what you are saying. You just never hear about it the Palestinian peacful protests because people only listen when they blow themselves up.

Between 1967 and 1999 the average number of Israelis killed by Palestinian militants was around 35 a year. In terms of polulation that is murder rate less than the city of Toronto -- now think about this: After Sharon was elected on a platform opposing negotiated settlement an average of 200 Israeli are being killed a year by Palestinian militants.

Lack of violent activity by Palestinians only means that you never hear about what is going on. It does not have any bareing on the Israeli occupation. In 35 years of mostly peaceful activities by the Palestinian mainstream has led to nothing. During that time settelment by Israel of Palestinian land has continued without let up.

Check your facts.

[ 20 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 20 May 2004 02:15 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Civil rights in the USA were won for African Americans on non-violent protest.

Aparthied in South Africa ended due to political presure and non-violent protest.

Right now today, If the Palestinians choose to they can use all of the non-violent resources at their disposal to come up with the best deal they can get from Israel.

Americans are tired of the unrest in the Middle East.

Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a huge victory due to the negatives going on in Iraq. For both the western and Muslim world.

The time is right. The UN wants it. Europe wants it. The USA needs it.

Could the Palestinians get 80% of what they want? Maybe?

If they do it right they might be able to get 85-90%.

Not perfect, Not everything but something better.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 20 May 2004 02:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Aparthied in South Africa ended due to political presure and non-violent protest.


Bunko.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 May 2004 02:31 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jack01:
[QB]

Would they "Palestinians" have held the higher moral ground and then been able to use that in future negotiations? Yes.


How nice of you to prattle on about 'moral highground' while comfortably ensconced in your easychair. Unfortunately, the high stakes game of state-making is not won with such niceties, especially when it is clear from the beginning that your prime opponent has no interest in them.

quote:
In 2004 what the Palestinians have is their choice.

Sure, they chose the Occupation. They choose to be mowed down while protesting, doing the wash, etc. They choose to be under curfew, to have their homes bulldozed, to have their lives under surveillance and control of the IDF. And, of course, the IDF and the State of Israel are just brainless, spineless puppets to the Palestinians' whims and are just giving them what they wanted...

Alice, is that you? Hand over that looking glass, it's going to get you in trouble....

[ 20 May 2004: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 20 May 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Of course the fact that Palestinians devoted themselves to peaceful protest for more than 20 years has no bareing on what you are saying. You just never hear about it the Palestinian peacful protests because people only listen when they blow themselves up.

Between 1967 and 1999 the average number of Israelis killed by Palestinian militants was around 35 a year. In terms of polulation that is murder rate less than the city of Toronto -- now think about this: After Sharon was elected on a platform opposing negotiated settlement an average of 200 Israeli are being killed a year by Palestinian militants.

Lack of violent activity by Palestinians only means that you never hear about what is going on. It does not have any bareing on the Israeli occupation. In 35 years of mostly peaceful activities by the Palestinian mainstream has led to nothing. During that time settelment by Israel of Palestinian land has continued without let up.

Check your facts.

[ 20 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Someone should tell Jacko about Rabin's old nickname. The Bonebreaker rings a bell...


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 20 May 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Civil rights in the USA were won for African Americans on non-violent protest."

Not quite. It took federal legislation and federal troops enforcing court orders to end apartheid in the south. Israel would not permit this to be done in the current conflict. Which is not to say that non-violent resistance is not the way to go. I think it should be tried on a broaders scale. But no one should be deluded that, by itself, this will end the conflict.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 21 May 2004 01:22 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
War didn't work. The Israelies win those.

Negotiation didn't work because at the end of it you need to agree to something?

So I guess were back to tit for tat violence.

So much for my theory of self determination.

[ 21 May 2004: Message edited by: Jack01 ]


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 May 2004 05:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Check your facts Jack.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
badhaddad
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5662

posted 22 May 2004 12:35 PM      Profile for badhaddad        Edit/Delete Post
Justice,

Good post. I urge everyone to sign the People's Voice initiative, though truthfully I think signing won't be anymore than a symbolic gesture.

I confess to deep pessimism about the chances for peace.

The main political effects of the current Palestinian war against Israel were the death of the peace movement and the election of Sharon to fight the war.

What needs to happen for peace to have a chance? Arafat needs to go because he's proven he's unwilling to negotiate in good faith. And he needs to be replaced by a Palestinian leader who's willing to lead.

Sharon needs to go because although Israelis have forced him to abandon his vision of a greater Israel, he still wants every inch he can grab. He needs to be replaced by a pragmatist.

(Well, a Left idealist would be okay, too, but the Israeli Left has no electoral prospects.)

Most of all the terrorism has to stop. Fatah has to really give up the terrorist option (not with its fingers crossed like Arafat at Oslo) and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other "death to all Jews" groups have to be rendered ineffective.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 May 2004 06:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is certain amount of truth in that other than the completely inaccurate telling of the break-down of the Oslo peace process. Even today the evidence brought against Arafat as "terrorist" schemer is completely wooly and amounts to payments (less than $1000) made to a handful of PA people who took up arms during the Intifada before they were revealed to be acting against PA policy.

Payments stopped after.

A government must pay the people that work for it, no?

Also, you are ignoring the fact that while Arafat and co. walked out of Camp David, they also continued to negotiate at Taba. Furthermore, the Al Aqsa faction of Fatah did not begin operations until 6 months after Sharon came to power, on the campaign pledge that he would reject any negotiated settlement by Barak (meaning the ongoing negotiation at Taba,) and immediatly after the IOF began reinvading the West Bank.

Check your facts Badbadbad. Your statements about Arafat and the breakdown of Oslo are exactly the kind of historical distortion that Shlaim and Pappe are attempting to correct.

[ 22 May 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 24 May 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,

You got me going with the fact thingy.

Arafat has been the leader of the Palestine people my entire life.

No peace.

So the fact that Arafat has been around my entire life and knothing good has come of his leadership then the fact is knothing is going to change.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 24 May 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me see:

Logic:

quote:
Arafat has been the leader of the Palestine people my entire life.

No peace.


Dates have been consumed by the Palestine people my entire life.

No Peace.

So the fact that Datest have been around my entire life and knothing good has come of this consumption then the fact is knothing is going to change.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jack01
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5211

posted 25 May 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for Jack01        Edit/Delete Post
Cueball,

Are you suggesting that since the Palestinians eat dates that this causes some type of gastric distress that makes peace impossible?

Eating dates cures constipation. You would think that would help?

Go figure.


From: Windsor, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 May 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wooooooooooooosh!

Holy Crap! What sailed over your head?!?!


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca