1. FrayVader - Oct. 6, 1998 - 7:46 PM PT
What is in the cards for the vexing question of Israel and Palestine? Recent overtures have been promising, but have they really accomplished anything? What is needed for a solution, if indeed one is possible?
I hope to see all viewpoints presented here. Who knows? Perhaps we can solve the problem, and cop a Nobel Prize for the Fray.
2. cllrdr - Oct. 6, 1998 - 8:48 PM PT
A Palestinian state.
3. patsyrolph - Oct. 6, 1998 - 9:04 PM PT
A Palestinian state sounds like a great idea BUT who gets Jerusalem?
4. AuNaturel - Oct. 6, 1998 - 9:43 PM PT
Jerusalem should be an international city under joint protectorate of Israel and the Palestinans.
Barring that, I think a high yield nuclear air burst over the central city to be the only quick solution.
5. MrSocko - Oct. 6, 1998 - 9:48 PM PT
First of all, I think this thread is oddly named. "Israel *and* Palestine"? There is no Palestine. There never was, in any political sense, only a Hashemite Kingdom that could yet hold the key to unlocking this riddle.
As far as Jerusalem goes, I believe the issue has been vastly over-rated as a stumbling block in the search for peace. The question of its future status could be resolved if both sides were prepared to play a few semantic games. What's so hard about that?
6. MrSocko - Oct. 6, 1998 - 9:51 PM PT
Jerusalem as an "international city" is a ridiculous suggestion that no nation-state would ever agree to with respect to their own capitals. Why the hell should the Jews, merely because they are Jews, be expected to agree to such lunacy?
7. Random - Oct. 6, 1998 - 10:41 PM PT
Israel had to fight a war not of their choosing to secure their homeland. Palestine lost the war. Benjamin Natanyahu should continue, in his wisdom and in his good time, to make whatever agreements he deems appropriate for his people. Hillary should shut her mouth about Israeli foreign affairs as well as American foreign affairs. She has never been elected to perform any service in America, and America doesn't need some paranoid, troubled woman flying around the world to stir up trouble. The loose cannon in the WH should be kept there, under lock and key if she can't learn to keep her mouth shut.
8. max012000 - Oct. 7, 1998 - 12:39 PM PT
It seems that the palistinian arabs and Israel have mutually exclusive interests. One or the other must prevail. Either Israel eventually evicts the arabs from palistine, as the surrounding arab states expelled their resident jews after the establishment of Israel, or the palistinian arabs with the aid of the surrounding arab states, progressively destroy Israel. How can there be any real peace until one or the other has prevailed? The current peace process seems like the attempted substitution of form for function. Like,"If we pretend to negociate, somehow peace will happen."
9. CharlieL - Oct. 7, 1998 - 12:50 PM PT
Hillary Clinton has as much right to be incorrect in her views as you do to be incorrect with yours, Doint. You just express your incorrect views much more often. I find it interesting that you propose people should be kept under lock and key for disagreeing with you. Doint, you little fascist, you.
"Max," could you please limit your fraudulent postings to the "Science" thread, where some people actually continue to believe that you are what you say you are?
10. max012000 - Oct. 7, 1998 - 12:59 PM PT
CharlieL:
Sorry, Charlie! I have just as much right to be here as you do. Like, I could care what you do or do not believe. Have you nothing constructive to contribute on any thread?
11. thomasd - Oct. 7, 1998 - 3:42 PM PT
max012000: I -bzzzt- am the supreme concretion of all human omniscience. I know when 'is' is 'is' and when 'is' isn't 'is'. Add to this the fact that, with the assistance provided by watching the Great Prevaricator in action, I have now rigorously proved the truthfulness of Lincoln's aphorism, that, in effect, you *can* fool all of the Democrats all of the time. All that remains now -zzzzaaap!- is to put my grand scheme into action. The first step is to....is to....is to.....-zzzzzzzzzzz-CRACK!
12. Random - Oct. 7, 1998 - 5:09 PM PT
ma012000:
Natanyahu will, obviously, get it straightened out, but without the help of Clinton or Allbright. Natanyahu is a war hero, lost his brother in war, and has great stature. I cannot see him relinquishing any points to Clinton, who has got to or should feel inferior next to Natanyahu and Hillary inferior next to Natanyahu's wife. Clinton is definitely more an Arrafat type.
I am tired of Allbright's 'off the lip' diplomacy in those Arab states. With
Allbright and Clinton stumbling around over the there, they're going to get the
USA bombed by a 3rd world country, into a situation where we cannot even retaliate without looking the part of a bully before the world.
13. Random - Oct. 7, 1998 - 5:17 PM PT
#11:Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force. Like
fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
-George Washington
14. MrSocko - Oct. 7, 1998 - 5:33 PM PT
Well, I must say that this thread has been pretty lame so far. I await the contributions of Mr. Pike and his Palestinian cohorts.
Meantime, may I start the ball rolling by mentioning that Benyamin Netanyahu is a political slut who has gotten into bed with every kind of odious character in the interests of personal advance. It's all very well to sit in America and say, "Golly, Mr. Netanyahu speaks such beautiful, MIT-inflected English!" but quite another, I think, to be in a state where Netanyahu's religious mullahs dictate the terms of your births, deaths, and marriages, and whether your personal expression of Judaism, or "Jewishness," enjoys legal standing.
In terms of the peace process, Netanyahu has pulled off the quite amazing feat of alienating both the left and right, not because he is a center kind of guy, but because his concessions have been feeble enough to look lame, while significant enough to look like a lapdogish. In fact, the only people who should be very happy with him are the guys in Hamas -- it was their wave of suicide bombings that clinched the deal for Likud.
15. lemwalker - Oct. 7, 1998 - 5:56 PM PT
In the long run it will be determined by strength. This feud is too old, land and water too scarce for it to be otherwise. Unless the reality of people changes any "peace" will bring more bitterness. It would be so nice to be wrong on this.
16. Random - Oct. 8, 1998 - 3:28 AM PT
Mr. Socko: The very fact our President Clinton and Spouse were poking
their noses into the internal affairs (elections) of Israel with their
efforts on behalf of the opposition to Natanyahu would put me on his
side.
17. MrSocko - Oct. 8, 1998 - 3:45 AM PT
Well, Israel is perfectly happy to accept billions of dollars each year from the US taxpayer. It seems a small price to ask for its leadership to accept a word or two of well-intentioned advice from members of the American First Family.
18. wexxford1 - Oct. 8, 1998 - 5:04 AM PT
Keep 'em marchin Socko, baby. Folks. Get a load of the hilarious front page photo of the Three Clowns,Arafat,Albright,and Netanyahoo laughin' it up for a photo=-op PR thingy for the mnoron press. Will these three get $1 million apiece for their ghost-written memoirs? Will they be sent out on the circuit( with Larry King and Lil Tommy Brokoaw showing the way) by the corporate masters to tell morons how they brought pece to the middle east.Listen and learn, you diligent folks. Name of the game is Keep the Morons Marching. Let's name the perpetrators, or are you all terrified of the corporate state PR masters? Hyuh! Hyuh! Hyuh! That Albright womwn needs to go on a diet, She's eatin' too high on the hog, dontcha think ?
19. Wombat - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:04 AM PT
Random:
As I recall, the Bush administration interfered with Israel's internal politics as well (for the better, IMO). Please confine your ignorance to your usual stamping grounds.
20. MrSocko - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:25 AM PT
wexxford:
Thanks for the kind words. I regard you as a simpleton.
21. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:58 AM PT
"There is no Palestine. There never was, in any
political sense, only a Hashemite Kingdom that could yet hold the key to unlocking this riddle."
This is a specious argument, often advanced by those who support a greater Israel. It remains a formidable barrier to peace and is based on spurious principles.
The two underlying assumptions of this argument are:
1) No people may assert local control if the territory they inhabit has not previously been considered a cohesive entity.
2) Historical claims to territory hold precedence in the event of competing claims on that territory.
Let's examine the value of these principles as they apply to other conflicts.
The secessionist movement in Québec offers some insights. If they win a future vote and demand immediate discussion with the rest of Canada, the authorities in Ottawa can assert these two principles.
1) Québec never existed in any political sense, thus demands for local control are illegitimate.
2) Canada recognizes that the Kingdom of France once held the territory in dispute and therefore will entertain discussions only with France.
Now, it can be seen that universal application of these principles is ludicrous.
The argument is really just a smokescreen, often used by occupying countries, to delegitimate the concept of local control. Socko, in N.Z., and myself, in the Americas, should both be well aware how this concept was used against the local inhabitants by occupying colonialists. This has never worked, anywhere, except through the application of some form of ethnic cleansing; through force, as in the former Yugoslavia; or through depopulation and repopulation as in Tibet, N.Z., the Americas, etc.
CONTINUED...
22. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
Compare the disposition of the Czech - Slovak dispute with that between Kosovo and Serbia. The Czechs wisely let the Slovaks secede without bloodshed. The current population of Kosovo (majority Albanian) demands self rule. Regardless of the historical legitimacy of Serbian claims to Kosovo, democratic principles will trump those historic claims. If the Serbians cannot accomodate the Albanian majority they will hold Kosovo only through force or ethnic cleansing. Serbia might win this battle, but at what cost?
Israel can likewise disregard the legitimate aspirations for self-governance by "Palestinians" (or however one wishes to designate these people who inhabit the territory in dispute). The current rulers of Israel might succeed in their efforts to delegitimize the Palestinians, to the point of dehumanization ("cockroaches in a bottle"), they may even succed in efforts to repopulate the occupied territories...but at what cost?
23. Ronski - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:03 AM PT
The Palestinian problem persists because the Arabs refused to accept partition, a reasonable political solution, in the first place, in 1948. The burden therefore rests on the Arabs to demonstrate a willingness to make peace. This is not likely to happen as long as Arab states (and Iran) refuse to open their societies in a way that will bring economic benefits and a concurrent sense of national pride to their people. Negotiations should continue; it can always be hoped that people doing a lot of talking will have less time to plan fighting. The Israelis would be insane to agree to a Palestinian state on the West Bank; it would make security impossible. A small state in Gaza might be acceptable to Israel, but would not satifsy Arab demands.
24. Ronski - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:09 AM PT
ptoyba,
The Slovak people had no great interest in secession from Czechoslovakia; it was negotiated by the heads of the two constituent republics. Both leaders have since been discredited, one by being something of a crook who is no longer in power, the other by being a hopeless autocrat, who regrettably still reigns. But the Velvet Divorce, having happened, will probably not be overturned; a reconciliation and remarriage is unlikely.
25. Wombat - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:10 AM PT
Please tell me how a Palestinian State that is much smaller than what Israel was prepared to cede in the Allon Plan in 1967-68 could be any more of a security risk than it was before, or is now. (Note that the Allon Plan called for Israel to retain military control over the Jordan River and other militarily valuable pieces of West Bank territory.)
26. MrSocko - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:28 AM PT
ptboya:
There's nothing specious in saying that Palestine never existed qua a nation state. I can assure you, too, that I have no fond hopes of a greater Israel emerging from beneath the Mideastern rubble. I was simply questioning why this thread had to be named after a non-existent entity. I fail to see what Québec has to do with anything; it is your analogy between the French and the Jews that is specious, although not quite so much as your comments regarding New Zealand. How on earth does NZ compare with the Mideast? Are you seriously suggesting that the Maoris, who came from Hawaii just a few centuries before the white guys came over from Holland, are, in any meaningful sense, to be compared with the American Indians or the Palestinian Arabs? Come, come!
A much better question to be asking, if you really wish to beat this annoying drum, is whether the Americans ought to hand back Texas and California to the Mexicans. Well, should they? I rather think not!
27. Ronski - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:36 AM PT
Wombat,
If Israel were to have full military control over a West Bank state it would probably not be much of a problem; but it would not be much of a state, either, more like an old-fashioned protectorate, something the Arabs might not agree to.
I would say, what the hell, give it a try, if there is sentiment in Israel for such an attempt.
28. Random - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:41 AM PT
Wombat:Tis you who are the alien invader, and I who was here first.
29. Wombat - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:52 AM PT
The current settlement calls for a self-governing Palestinian "Entity" which has only police and paramilitary forces (with Israel retaining defensive positions, military posts and surveillance facilities throughout the West Bank). The Palestinians have already agreed to it.
I don't really think that statehood is such a big jump from there. The issue of Jerusalem is vexatious, as is the status of Israeli settlements. If the Israelis can find the political courage to compromise in these areas (bearing in mind that the status of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is comparatively recent, as are many of the settlements), a comprehensive settlement may be possible.
What many people forget is that Israel is dealing from a position of strength. Rabin knew this, but Netanyahu and his supporters find this fact to be politically inconvenient.
30. Random - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:27 AM PT
Putting aside all the 'devils being in the details' you're all correct. Two points: Israel didn't start the war but won it. The Palestinians still want to wipe Israel off the map.
America has been in a much better position to negotiate peace treaties with skilled negotiators and trained diplomats.
Clinton is Netanyahu's political enemy who worked to defeat him once, doubtful Netanyahu will ever agree for the sake of agreement. Netanyahu keeps reiterating
his position on secure borders in every news conference. He does what Margaret Thatcher does, keeps repeating the same lines until the media gets it through their head to drop the question he doesn't want to answer. Netanyahu and Israel has lots of friends in Congress, can afford to wait until Clinton's out of office.
In some other sites (McLaughlin for one)very vehement and hostile positions are held against Israel. Taxpayer funds going to Israel is central to
much of the commentary. Netanyahu has said from the beginning he wants to put Israel in a position of needing less and less money from this country. I applaud that.
Frankly, I see the Israeli being much more humane in their treatment of the Palestinians than many, even most of the Arab countries.
31. Wombat - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:42 AM PT
Random:
Israel is more humane in its dealings with Palestinians than most of its neighbors are or would be. Unfortunately, it is not relevant to the issue.
Netanyahu has not been able to shake the belief among many Israelis that his failure to denounce the extemist rhetoric of some of his supporters created the atmosphere that led to Rabin's assassination.
The Palestinians can wish all they want for Israel to disappear. They cannot make it so. What threatens Israel most is a failure to establish enough of a peace settlement to keep the Palestinians busy running their country instead of seeking support from increasing radicalized countries with increasingly sophisticated arsenals.
32. Random - Oct. 8, 1998 - 10:06 AM PT
Good point in paragraph one and three. Second paragraph I would answer depends on the validity of their press you read. While Rabin was a popular leader, he did transfer the power to Peres. Netanyahu won the election and that is where
we are now. Netanyahu appears to have weathered some serious storms since he
came to power.
33. Wombat - Oct. 8, 1998 - 10:49 AM PT
Random:
No he didn't. After he died, Peres as the number two in the party took over, and was confirmed in the Knesset. Israel's electorate is split almost exactly in half concerning the Palestinian settlement.
Netanyahu has held on, in large part, because he has benefited from a change in the Constitution that makes it more difficult to topple the government in power with a no-confidence vote.
34. RustlerPike - Oct. 8, 1998 - 2:13 PM PT
I am impressed with how well-informed people posting here so far are about Israel, and happy that the tone is, all in all, more sympathetic to my country than I had expected it to be.
With regard to ptboya's reference to "cockroaches in a bottle": this is how MK Refael Eytan, who was Chief of Staff during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, supposedly characterized the Palestinians in the West Bank, in a discussion held in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Security Committee, over 10 years ago.
Discussions in this committee are supposed to be secret, but have always been systematically leaked by certain MK's. I was present at such briefings, as IDF radio's Knesset Correspondent ('85-'86).
It was Yossi Sarid, a very dovish MK, who apparently leaked this quote, which caused quite a ruckus at the time. Eytan has since claimed that he was not referring to the Arabs, but rather to the situation of the Jews in Israel if the territories were handed over to the Arabs (that they would be confined in a very small space, running around "like drugged roaches in a bottle").
Eytan is a crude guy with a crude way of expressing himself. He is generally considered reasonably honest, and I, personally, believe his version. I think if he had been referring to the Arabs, he wouldn't have bothered to deny it.
35. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:12 PM PT
Regards, btw, Socko. Hope you and the missus are doing well.
"A much better question to be asking, if you really wish to beat this annoying drum, is whether the Americans ought to hand back Texas and California to the Mexicans. Well, should they? I rather think not!"
First, let me say I did not have you pegged as a proponent of Greater Israel. But the argument you put forward has been used ad nauseum by that camp.
Overall, you misconstrue my point. Local control trumps all... is the bottom line. If the citizens of any territory can no longer stomach control exercised by others, they will, and should, form their own entity. Power relationships are, like all relationships, ongoing. Legitimacy is subject to continual questioning. Once established it must be constantly re-established. If the controlling power insists on retaining territory when its legitimacy has eroded, it must perforce, use force and/or ethnic cleansing.
And once reason fails to sway disaffected peoples, the controlling power often tries to delegitimize those peoples. This is simple, tactical avoidance...delegitimize your enemies then you can justify not speaking to them. This has been true in Israel, in Canada and the US, and...sorry, your ox must be gored too...in NZ.
Thus, to directly answer the question you pose, (copied above), if at some point in the future, the population of Texas wishes to secede, join Mexico, or Canada, or Iceland, whatever... nothing but force and/or ethnic cleansing will stop them. Historical claims just will not wash once a controlling power loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the inhabitants of any territory.
36. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:23 PM PT
RustlerPike...
I have never heard this take on the quote I cited. But, let's assume it's true (what Eytan said), it must still be admitted that certain parties in Israel have systematically tried to delegitimize the people living in the West Bank or Palestine, call it what you will. Even Rabin, whom I credit for his personal evolution, dehumanized those inhabitants, when he called for broken bones, etc. And, in this respect, Israel and its leaders have not been unlike other occupying powers whose authority has dissolved in the eyes of the occupied.
37. thomasd - Oct. 8, 1998 - 7:55 PM PT
WRT any upcoming 'peace talks', I just have this vision of Hillary standing over Netanyahu, in her shiny jackboots and brown tunic, whacking her truncheon into the open palm of her other hand while intoning "Zere vill be a Palestinian State."
38. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:04 PM PT
And your point is?
39. BobaFett - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:10 PM PT
Rustler Pike:
I don't see any real possibility of a good resolution on this.
Will Israelis ever agree to a divided Jerusalem? Will Palestinians ever agree to relinquish their claims to it?
Is there any kind of compromise in the works?
40. MrSocko - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:55 PM PT
ptboya:
I have no problems with a demilitarized Palestinian state. None whatsoever. Nor, as I've said, do I think the issue of Jerusalem is all that hard to work out to the satisfaction of a majority, providing both sides are prepared to indulge in a little bit of semantics.
41. cllrdr - Oct. 8, 1998 - 8:59 PM PT
Wooing tips for Jade in #37 Judge d?
42. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:05 PM PT
Well Socko, this will be no fun. We're apparantly in accord on this issue.
Should we discuss the chances of some territorial compromise in Jerusalem? Right now I'd put it at nil. This may still be a deal breaker down the line.
43. alistairconnor - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:16 PM PT
I have the feeling that there will be no resolution, or even progress, until Israelis come to consider the situation of Palestinians to be a question of civil rights and social justice.
44. BobaFett - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:19 PM PT
Allistair:
But it's not that simple. It's also a question of sovereignty, and it's also a question of somebody winning a war, and somebody losing a war.
Now, unfair as it was, I'm not going to cede the United States back to the Native Americans just because we took the land by force. And until the US decides to do so, I think we need to show some restraing about telling Israel to give up what was once theirs, and was taken again by force.
45. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:36 PM PT
Boba apparantly reads selectively. Fairness, wrt history, is not really the issue. It is a red herring. It is whether or not a government, occupier or not, can hold the hearts and minds of those under its jurisdiction. If it cannot, appeals to historical prerogatives are meaningless. This is, I presume, why alistair frames the issue in terms of civil rights and social justice.
Native Americans, were not merely displaced from their territory, they were annihilated as a people. There's really no one left to cede land back to... so what's your point? That Israel should follow the same script the US did? How far do you want to take the parallel?
46. Jenerator - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:39 PM PT
ptboya,
Honestly, what do you think the Americans should have done with the Native Indians?
47. MrSocko - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:40 PM PT
Message #43
"[T]here will be no resolution, or even progress, until Israelis come to consider the situation of Palestinians to be a question of civil rights and social justice."
I disagree. These concepts are altogether too fluid. The Jews need to allow a Palestinian state simply because it is in their interest to do so. Why? Because if they hold on to the territories for another couple of generations, simple demographics will lay to waste Israel's claim to being a liberal Jewish state. Faced with a majority Arab population, Israel qua Israel loses its raison d'etre.
Israel also needs to rid itself of the territories for the self-interested reason that they have not brought security to the Jewish home. They have brought the opposite. And they have revealed a glaring weakness in Israel's much-vaunted defense ability: while the Jews may indeed be impressive soldiers in on the battlefield, they make bloody lousy neighborhood cops.
48. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:52 PM PT
However, Socko...
Looking out for one's self interest doesn't preclude acting morally wrt social justice. It is partly because Israel has not done so that it now begins to see its self interest in terms of ridding itself of territories and peoples.
49. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:54 PM PT
Jen...
"Honestly, what do you think the Americans should have done with the Native Indians?"
Is this a serious question? If so, it needs another thread.
50. BobaFett - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:56 PM PT
Ptboya:
Israel has always wanted to "rid itself" of the Palestinians.
Do you think Israel ever wanted a state which had a significant Arab population?
51. Jenerator - Oct. 8, 1998 - 9:57 PM PT
Yes, it's a serious question. I know that it requires a lengthy answer, and it's late. Someday I'd like to hear your opinion though.
52. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 10:26 PM PT
"Do you think Israel ever wanted a state which had a significant Arab population?"
Definitely not. No state ever covets the people in other territories, only the territories themselves.
53. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 10:27 PM PT
Jen...
Well, if you can convince FV to start such a thread I'd be happy to oblige.
54. ptboya - Oct. 8, 1998 - 10:32 PM PT
I should alter #52 somewhat. Slavery was definitely an institution that coveted people rather than territories.
55. Random - Oct. 8, 1998 - 11:34 PM PT
You folks have stayed away from the Jerusaleum issue. Move our embassy to Jerusaleum? Might be safer there from the bombing schedules
of the Arabs.
56. RustlerPike - Oct. 9, 1998 - 2:13 AM PT
ptboya:
The approach which says no government can hold on to a territory whose population wants to be rid of it is one I have heard used here by the left. But if you think about it, the same could have been said 50, 60, 70 years ago regarding the territory which eventually became the Israeli state.
The Jews were not, initially, a majority, nor were they ever wanted there by the Arabs. But a war broke out, and since the Arabs had started it, they couldn't complain when they lost. And they didn't just lose the war: they lost villages, and territory.
Anything is possible, ptboya (Ben Gurion once said that in order to be a realist in the mideast, one had to believe in miracles).
The classic Zionist approach, if I may try to sum up the strategy in so many words, is to create "facts on the ground" (*'uvdot bashetakh*) and "drive in stakes" (*litko'a yetedot*) wherever possible:
You buy land, expropriate it, whatever. Then you build houses and roads and schools. You till the soil. You protect the land and its inhabitants. Gradually, you widen your territory. There are always excuses for that.
If there is international pressure on you to give back what you took - well, for one thing, that's better than you being the one who is asking for justice. Now, you pretend to be nice. You talk peace. You negotiate. You concede what what you never really wanted that much anyway. You stall. And you wait for the other side to make a mistake that will enable you to capitalize on it, to be - and play - the victim, to feel - and look - like you've got justice on your side again.
And the Arabs always do just that. In the words of Abba Eban, the Palestinians "have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
57. Wombat - Oct. 9, 1998 - 4:20 AM PT
Rustler:
Until Oslo. When it finally dawned on Arafat that the Palestinians were not going to get anything back through the efforts of their "friends" they took the opportunity that was offered.
What worries me now is that the Israelis are going to miss an opportunity to rid themselves of much of their Palestinian "problem" by refusing minor concessions and being unwilling to address the major sticking points in the agreement.
Frankly, IMO, the issue of "justice" and the rights of the Palestinians was made moot by Oslo. The Palestinians now have their own self-governing "entity," which will probably become a country before long. It is much smaller than what they would have received had they agreed to the Allon Plan, but that is not the Israelis' fault. Palestinians who wish to enjoy the freedoms and benefits of self-government may do so.
58. RustlerPike - Oct. 9, 1998 - 4:39 AM PT
BobaFett:
"I don't see any real possibility of a good resolution on this".
Neither do I, unless you consider fighting a war (and preferably winning) as a good resolution to things. I mean, we all profess to be anti-war, but we all celebrate, and enjoy the results of, past victories. Even Americans do that.
"Will Israelis ever agree to a divided Jerusalem?"
I can't imagine that ever happening.
"Will Palestinians ever agree to relinquish their claims to it?"
That's a toughie, I don't know. When Labor was still in power, there was some kind of agreement between Yossi Beilin, one of Peres's main men (Rabin once called him "Peres's poodle"), and Abu-Mazen on the Palestinian side, which basically said that there would be two Jerusalems: today's Jerusalem would belong to the Jews, and the village of Abu-Dis (I think it was Abu-Dis), which adjoins Jerusalem, would become the Palestinian capital, and somehow pass for "Palestinian Jerusalem". I have no idea how people were supposed to be convinced that Jerusalem had suddenly moved to Abu-Dis, but apparently this had received a Palestinian okay. Anyway, the plan seems to have died when Likud came to power.
"Is there any kind of compromise in the works?"
Not that I know of.
59. RustlerPike - Oct. 9, 1998 - 4:50 AM PT
Wombat:
Ah, but is it too late? Had the Palestinians listened to Sadat, they could have prevented most of the Jewish settlements in the West bank and Gaza from being built. But that was 20 years ago, and the Likud has been in power for most of those years, building away.
The thing is this: just as the Palestinians are more than just Yasir Arafat, and include groups like Hamas, the Israelis are more than just Netayahu. The Israeli equivalent of Hamas - religious nationalist extremists - have their own towns and outposts, the West Bank settlements, and they are guarded by the Israeli military.
The settlements were all authorized by the Israeli government and are perfectly legal, in terms of Israeli law, though the West Bank and Gaza were never officially annexed.
60. MrSocko - Oct. 9, 1998 - 5:43 AM PT
Rustler:
"In the words of Abba Eban, the Palestinians 'have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.'"
Eban never said that. You're confusing him for Tom Friedman.
61. ptboya - Oct. 9, 1998 - 8:35 AM PT
"The settlements were all authorized by the Israeli government and are perfectly legal, in terms of Israeli law, though the West Bank and Gaza were never officially annexed."
So what? Are you justifying expropriation simply because an occupying government passes laws supporting its acts. It was all done in contravention of International Law which forbids efforts to alter populations within occupied territories. Uvdot bashetakh has been, as I have here argued, just another form of ethnic cleansing and has historical precedents here in North America and current parallels in Tibet and Yugoslavia. Uvdot bashetakh is certainly not the moral high ground.
But, as I have argued, none of this is meaningful to occupied people. If a body of people decide they have had enough of the government with jurisdiction over them, it is their right to form their own entity. Americans cannot easily fudge this issue however much they are inclined to forgive Israelis for actions similar to those the US government foisted upon the N.A. indiginous population.
62. Ronski - Oct. 9, 1998 - 8:42 AM PT
I agree with the idea of a Native American thread, and will propose one to Vader. In the meantime, I would suggest, as an American of European extraction, that European settlers in America should have obeyed the treaties they made (recognized the rule of law). But they didn't.
63. ptboya - Oct. 9, 1998 - 8:45 AM PT
sp. "indigenous"
64. ptboya - Oct. 9, 1998 - 8:50 AM PT
In #57 You sound like an unreconstructed colonialist, Wombat. They had their chance now they must accept their Bantustans. Is that it? From a distance that sounds easy. But if your family had had to relinquish land in the process you might think otherwise.
65. 109109 - Oct. 9, 1998 - 9:06 AM PT
Ptboya
Yes, they must, to the extent they remain barbaric in a zealotry that calls for the elimination of the Jewish state and the people. You don't give up land for questionable political aims, especially at a a time when the Palestinian movement remains rabid and violent.
Land should be parsed after the Palestinian movement has shown that it can remain peaceful without a concession. Otherwise, it is a fool's gambit, to trade such a bargaining chip - and a strategic plus - for a hope.
Moreover, the times don't call for a deal on the international front. Israel an kill scores and retain support and largess from the United States.
66. RustlerPike - Oct. 9, 1998 - 2:08 PM PT
Mr Socko:
Tom Friedman used that line, but Abba Eban authored it. I'd bet on it, but I don't know how I'd prove it.
ptboya:
"So what? Are you justifying expropriation simply because an occupying government passes laws supporting its acts."
No I'm not - I thought that might be misconstrued, but I didn't have time to expound on it.
What I'm saying is that it's going to be damn near impossible to get the settlers out of the West Bank. They are there for the express purpose of causing Israel to hold on to the territories, and will do anything - anything - to prevent Israel giving the territories back.
And it's damn easy for them to foil any attempt at peace. All they have to do is provoke the Arab population by, say, putting up some posters printed by some wacko lady from Jerusalem, portraying Muhammad as a pig, and the whole West Bank erupts in violence. They are capable of killing Arabs, and Jews (remember Rabin?).
They also present perfect targets for the Palestinian extremists, because of their proximity, and their insistence on leading a lifestyle as "civilian" as possible: going everywhere with their families, pretending that they are not in a military zone but simply "at home", walking by foot down streets I would be afraid to drive through in an armored personnel carrier.
If you ask me what is more likely to happen this year: Netanyahu and Arafat signing an agreement on the final status of the territories, or Hebron being the scene of a slaughter, followed by the whole West Bank and Gaza erupting in flames - I'd say the second scenario, if only because the minute an agreement seems imminent, someone will make sure it never happens.
67. RustlerPike - Oct. 9, 1998 - 2:27 PM PT
ptboya:
"Uvdot bashetakh has been, as I have here argued, just another form of ethnic cleansing and has historical precedents here in North America and current parallels in Tibet and Yugoslavia."
I disagree. For one thing, I despise the term "ethnic cleansing", and do not understand why world news agncies and leaders adopted it. We're talking about systematic massacres, after all.
Israel does not conduct systematic massacres of Palestinians. It does not conduct *any* massacres, actually. There have been cases of individuals running amok, and there was an organized settler terror organization operating for a while, but there has never been, in the 30 year history of the Israeli occupation, a massacre conducted by an army unit, or by a soldier obeying orders.
68. max012000 - Oct. 9, 1998 - 2:32 PM PT
Hey guys:
Suppose the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol made a sweep through Gaza and the West Bank giving every family one of those "checks" for a million dollars to be cashed at the National Bank in Beruit? The next day, a vast exodus of palistinians would begin. Then, all the Israelis would have to do would be not to let them back in!
I can see it now. Ed McMahon, the pied piper of palistine! Protests in Beruit, "Death to Ed McMahon!" "Death to the CIA!" "Death to nearly everyone!"
The Israeli Prime Minister: "Palistinian problem? What palistinian Problem?"
69. Random - Oct. 9, 1998 - 3:18 PM PT
Ronski-62:Indians, ostensibly, were on reservations, treaties signed before the territory was accepted into Statehood. Montana, Arizona and other western states became states in the late 19th century. The Indian Treaties were signed by the United States as related to the territories in many cases.
I'm not sure,without looking it up, just what the laws were at the time of Statehood for each state or how convoluted the process of determining the actual law could become.
Even in the shorter period of history of Israel, the conditions have been such the same separating the wheat from the shaft.
There is,
however, a factor in common, the Indians do not really like us much better than the Palestinians like the Israeli.
A comparable case in point is the immigration laws. At one point a woman lost her citizenship by marrying an
alien, even if she was born an American citizen. Her children were citizens of
the husband's country. If that same woman divorced said alien and married a
US citizen, the children of that marriage were citizens, but the woman had to
reapply for citizenship as the alien she had become by virtue of her first
marriage. Later, all children born of Americans in any country were automatically American by virtue of their parent's heritage.(that is parent-not
parents if the wife was not American.) Later the laws concerning the woman
who lost her citizenship by marriage to an alien were changed again to establish
that an American could not, in fact, lose citizenship by marriage to an alien.
They had to renounce citizenship to lose it....and I wish I hadn't gotten into
this.
70. ptboya - Oct. 9, 1998 - 6:58 PM PT
Rustler...
I elaborated on ethnic cleansing in an earlier post. I regret you don't like the term and I do agree that Israel has no policy to systematically massacre any ethnic group. But, as I see it, it is not necessary to resort to massacre to cleanse an area of undesirable ethnic groups. Any form of depopulation (expulsion) or repopulation (settlers) will do. Throughout its brief modern history Israel has systematically engaged in both to alter the population of its territories to its perceived advantage. And as I pointed out, this is against international law which wisely prohibits such actions. Basically what you've said is that Zionists have decided to thumb their noses at the UN because they'd rather own the ground than the moral high ground. This is understandable in terms of short run power politics, but in the long run, if efforts to reconstitute the demographics of the West Bank fail, it will, predictably, be seen as a short sighted policy.
71. MrSocko - Oct. 9, 1998 - 9:13 PM PT
RustlerP:
Actually, we're both wrong. It was Zev Chafets who originally said of *Yasser Arafat* that he, Arafat, "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Friedman quotes him to this effect in the book _From Beirut to Jerusalem_.
For anybody who has not yet had the pleasure, I'd urge you to get to know Chafets' brilliantly witty column in the fortnightly Jerusalem Report magazine. You'll be pleased you made the effort.
72. RustlerPike - Oct. 10, 1998 - 12:25 AM PT
MrSocko:
Nope, it was Abba Eban. Eban was making witticisms like that in the UN when Chafets was in diapers.
Now, I'm afraid, Eban may be in diapers. But that's life.
73. RustlerPike - Oct. 10, 1998 - 12:41 AM PT
pt:
Expulsion - yes, during the war of 1948, there was expulsion. The old story, about the Arabs all just running away, doesn't wash anymore. Israeli forces certainly "helped" them to flee. But then again, if they had won that one, they would have "helped" us to die.
If you're talking about the West Bank and Gaza though - again, there have been no expulsions I can think of, other than as punishment for convicted terrorists. There has been expropriation of land, but no large-scale eviction of people from their homes, not that I can think of.
Having said that: Sharon had some alleys in Gaza widened - which meant that houses were demolished - around 1970, as a part of the war against terrorists there. This was to enable soldiers to patrol more effectively, but I imagine there was some punitive motive as well.
Actually, the Arab population of the territories has grown dramatically, I believe, since being occupied by Israel.
74. MrSocko - Oct. 10, 1998 - 6:30 AM PT
RustlerP:
As a member of the IDF, what has been your experience with Arabs? Have you ever had to shoot one? Or rough one up? What have you done when some Arab guy has been standing there hurling rocks at you and your patrol?
75. ptboya - Oct. 10, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
Rustler...
Yes, by expulsions (depopulation) I was referring to those in '48 from territory that is now Israel. I assume that just the fact that you squarely acknowledge this fact places you on the left of the Israeli political spectrum.
As for repopulation (settlers in settlements), this has been the strategy of choice on the West Bank. Construction has been subsidized, in addition to mortgages, so it has been a co-ordinated, national effort to alter the population balance. The fact that the birth rate of Palestinians has outpaced these efforts at repopulation is the reason "the Arab population of the territories has grown dramatically."
76. RustlerPike - Oct. 10, 1998 - 1:39 PM PT
MrSocko:
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm afraid I wasn't much of a combat soldier... my army service was mostly as a reporter for IDF radio.
However, I did do basic training in an armoured division for five months, and we were put on active duty for two weeks in a village called Dahariya, near Hebron.
This was 4 years before the Intifada, in 1983. The entire village was under curfew for almost 24 hrs. a day, for over a month, because of a rock that had been thrown at an Israeli car, killing a young woman.
I was very leftish-winged in those days, and I was disgusted by the whole thing. The guys in my platoon, who were not, shall we say, the best and the brightest, used to humiliate Arabs for the fun of it, rough them up, step through their houses with muddy boots on purpose, point guns at kids, steal lighters and cigarettes when conducting searches, etc.
I did what I could: I complained to our officer in charge, and tried to warn kids to get out of our way if I was marching at the head of the platoon. I also remember that I tried to help prisoners who were cuffed and blindfolded, on a bus taking them to be interrogated, to be a bit more comfortable.
Oh - and I got a rock thrown at my car in Ramallah once, when I was already a reporter. It went through the window but didn't really hurt me at all. The kid who threw it ran away. I sort of cocked my gun without getting out of the car, and drove on.
Not very heroic.
77. RustlerPike - Oct. 10, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
I'm not left-winged at all these days, but I imagine I would still be just as disgusted with the whole thing if I had to be in a situation like that again.
78. ptboya - Oct. 11, 1998 - 1:27 PM PT
It looks like the decks are being cleared for an acceptance of some version of the US 13% solution. Sharon as a sop to the far right, and 3% or so of the 13% total designated as wildlife retreat, or some variety thereof, upon which no dwellings are to be constructed.
So, once this is digested, it's on to the battle over Jerusalem. What do our resident Israel experts think about:
a) The attempt to create a greater Jerusalem via incorporation of West Bank territory into the metropolitan area of Jerusalem. I know there is opposition to enlarging the metropolitan territory even in Israeli villages and towns to be swallowed. How is that issue playing out?
b) The odds that *any* of the territory that is now Jerusalem will become part of Palestine. I think there's no chance, but I see and read from afar. What is the reading from ground zero?
79. MrSocko - Oct. 11, 1998 - 4:30 PM PT
Well, as I've said already, I don't think Jeruslaem is all that hard to work out. It just requires a little bit of semantics on both sides (something that Jews and Arabs are pretty talented at). If you've ever been to Jeruslaem, you'll know that physically separating the city is out of the question, even more so than, say, separating Manhattan from the Bronx. Besides, many Israeli Arabs live in West Jerusalem, further complicating the situation.
Since the future Palestine will be demilitarized, it's really just a matter of allowing the PA to physically declare Jerusalem its capital, while at the same time allowing for a UN resolution recognizing Israel's own claim to the city. Meantime, the Old City could retain its current status.
One final thing about Jerusalem: it's misleading to say that Israel has pursued a policy of "greater Jerusalem" in its housing policies in this city. Most Jews don't gice a hoot about the eastern city. No, what we see in settlements such as Har Homa is a policy of encircling the Arab sections with armed Jewish settlements; the policy is one of security, not expansionism per se.
80. ptboya - Oct. 11, 1998 - 9:17 PM PT
Well it's kind of difficult to separate security from expansionism in this conflict. I believe I'm correct that the plan is to expand Jerusalem through expropriation of territory that is now part of the West Bank.
The point I was trying to make, is:
A) If Jerusalem is expanded and,
B) If, as polls show, there is a solid bloc of voters in Israel unwilling to ever cede any territory in Jerusalem,
Then that constitutes another strategy designed to create facts on the ground before the talks ever get to the disposition of Jerusalem.
81. RustlerPike - Oct. 12, 1998 - 12:39 AM PT
ptboya:
"that constitutes another strategy designed to create facts on the ground before the talks ever get to the disposition of Jerusalem."
Of course it does.
A-propos facts on the ground strategy: I don't know if I told you guys that I was IDF radio's reporter in the West Bank and Gaza before I was reporter in the Knesset. The settlers' leadership has hardly changed at all since then, and all they were talking about back then ('84-'85) was the need to build up and expand settlement in the territories before Labor returned to power and tried to hand the area back to the Arabs.
They sensed that this was going to happen, and treated it as a certainty. They had all these emergency meetings on how to prevent the hand-over, even though the Likud was still in power (albeit in a strange rotation agreement with Labor).
Some of them are pretty crude characters. I remember one of them coming out of a meeting, refusing to comment, and explaining to me that he, unlike others, "doesn't reach orgasm" from seeing reporters (as the other guys snickered in back of him).
82. RustlerPike - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:05 AM PT
Look, I don't know if I'm right or wrong here, but my feeling is we are headed for war in this part of the world. It could take a while, but my feeling is it's unavoidable in the long run.
I can't see Arafat accepting a final settlement which gives him only 41% of the territories, which I think is what he'll end up with if Israel gives him the 13%, and then adds on another 1% in stage 3 of the redeployment - but this is all it seems Israel is willing to give him.
Even if he were practical enough to accept a solution like that, and even if a peace deal is done, I cannot see how the Palestinians can accept the presence of the settlements. This will be a constant source of friction. The settlements were designed from the outset, I believe, to prevent a Palestinian state from being possible, and that is what they will do.
The Palestinians will attack the settlements, which are an insult to their sovereignty, and the settlers will attack back. I don't see how peace can be achieved. Eventually, someone will hit someone too hard (like, a Palestinian attack on a settler school bus), and hostilities will ensue.
We saw this happen when Netanyahu opened that tunnel from the Wailing Wall in September of '96 (I think it was then). The territories erupted, and for a couple of days it was war. It's so easy for that to happen again... and next time, Arafat may not want - or be able - to call it off.
83. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 7:01 AM PT
From Feminism and Sex:
1941. RustlerPike - Oct. 10, 1998 - 2:05 PM PDT
I can just picture Msit in her combat fatigues and sunshades, leading mariagleason, ChristiPeters, bubba, Azure, Adrianne, Jenerator and Diva down a mountain pass in Afghanistan. It is night.
Msit (whispers): "OK nuns... we're here. You all know what we have to do. I wanted to say something before you go out there and risk your lives, women.
"We are doing this because we believe in equality between the sexes. we are doing it because we are willing to die for that equality. We are not going to let the pigs do this commando stuff by themselves, and then get macho action-movies made about them... not ever again!"
(I know it is hard to picture Msit talking without spelling mistakes - but there it is anyway)
The women scamper off into the night. A muffled curse in Arabic is heard. The women have been spotted. Maria points her rocket propelled grenade at the terrorist position, and fires...
1942. RustlerPike - Oct. 11, 1998 - 12:57 AM PDT
(cont.)
A well aimed round from an AK-47 hits ChristiPeters in the chest. "Go ahead without me, girls", she says hoarsely. "Do it for our country. So that the men and children we left behind can stroll around safely in their shopping malls".
As ChristiP's voice trails off, AzureNW gets very very angry. "Shouldn't have done that, Aye-rab mother FUCKERS!!!!", she screams, and runs into the Arab position, blowing herself up and destroying the bunker.
"Equality! equality!" - the remaining women chant, as they lob grenades and shoot at everything that moves. "We must protect our country! We must protect our menfolk!"
Continued
84. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 7:02 AM PT
1943. RustlerPike - Oct. 11, 1998 - 4:54 AM PDT
An incendiary bomb lands 100 feet away from where Diva and bubba were standing. Diva is badly burned: it will take her a year of agonizing hospital treatments before she recovers, and her face will be one ugly scar after that.
Bubba is burning. "I am not a sex object!", she screams. "I will never ever agree to be a sex object! No means... NO!!!!!!!!!!!... (gasp!)..." (thunk).
Just as her body is about to be rent open by a burst from a anti-aircraft gun, Msit raises her right arm in a fisted gesture of defiance: "equal at last", she thunders, "equal at last! God almighty, we are equal at last!!!"
PRRRRAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA!!!!!!!!!!
85. bubbaette - Oct. 12, 1998 - 7:05 AM PT
The Pustule Pike isn't representative of Israelis in general is he?
86. ptboya - Oct. 12, 1998 - 7:53 AM PT
C'mon Bubbaette. Do this in one Thread and link to that thread. Stop spamming.
87. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 7:58 AM PT
It's not Bubba, I was the one who posted; links do nothing. TrufflingPig's murderous fantasies deserve to be perpetuated, especially where it attempts to sound 'normal'.
88. ptboya - Oct. 12, 1998 - 8:04 AM PT
Yes...
Apologies to Bubbaette. Don't mind your raving maria. But really, stop the spamming. Is Chief of Thought Police an appointed position?
89. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 8:06 AM PT
I was wondering that too, ptboya. Is it anything like Chief of Content Police?
90. RustlerPike - Oct. 12, 1998 - 12:45 PM PT
Sorry, I just couldn't bear to see "mariagleason" next to the name of my fave thread, in the table of contents.
91. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 12:48 PM PT
You'll keep seeing it, TrufflingPig. I'm just as knowledgeable about Israeli/Palestinian affairs as you are about feminism.
92. bubbaette - Oct. 12, 1998 - 12:49 PM PT
Rustler Puke
How about "asshole" next to your name in all threads? I think that would be funny.
93. RustlerPike - Oct. 12, 1998 - 12:58 PM PT
Talk about Feminazis. So - that skit got you where it hurts, didn't it? You guys want equal rights - but not equal duty. Simple as that. You want the right to be a fighter pilot if you want to, but you don't want to *have* to get shot at. While for guys during a draft - this is not an option. They get shipped off overseas whether they want to or not. But that's not inequality, is it, fems?
94. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:01 PM PT
Yes, that skit really really really hurt us, TrufflingPig; so much so, that Feminism and Sex is no longer a good environment for us. We're moving in here.
95. bubbaette - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
By the way Pustule, are all israelis as big an asshole as you are?
96. bubbaette - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:04 PM PT
I think the Pustule has poor reading comprehension. It doesn't bother to read anything that might conflict with its preconceived notions. Sorry you've had a difficult time relating to the opposite sex, Pustule, but have you considered that maybe you're just a pig?
97. ScottLoar - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:07 PM PT
Not, not, not in this thread, please! Just address the arguments presented here, please. It's one of the few oasis of good debate left in this Fray.
98. mariagleason - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:12 PM PT
Sorry, ScottLoar. Some of us wanted Feminism and Sex to have that opportunity, and it never did. Perhaps this is what it takes to show some people or things not to smear their excrement where others eat.
99. bubbaette - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:12 PM PT
Scott
Maria just thought you might want to see the vast reasoning powers of the Rustler Puke. He's seen fit to vomit all over the Feminism thread, so turn about's fair play.
100. ScottLoar - Oct. 12, 1998 - 1:19 PM PT
Yes, yes, yes, so I absent myself from this thread as well.