New Israeli/Palestinian peace plan

[IrishHand]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2988373.stm
In part...all italics mine...

New Mid-East peace plan launched

International mediators have presented their long-awaited "roadmap" to peace in the Middle East to both sides in the conflict.

Copies of the plan were delivered on Wednesday to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas - also known as Abu Mazen - whose appointment was a key step towards its launch.

It is intended to be a phase-by-phase route to ending conflict, and could lead to full Palestinian statehood as early as 2005.

A bomb attack in Tel Aviv in which three people were killed by a suicide bomber failed to delay its publication.

The "roadmap" was drafted by envoys from the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia.

It calls initially for an immediate ceasefire, a crackdown on Palestinian militants, an Israeli withdrawal from Palestinian towns and the dismantling of Jewish settlements erected since 2001.

However officials on both sides have reacted guardedly to the launch of the plan.

Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Sofer told the BBC: "Before anything can happen we are hoping and praying that Abu Mazen takes the bull by the horns and implements what he said he would... He has to really bring an end to terrorism."

Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, for her part, urged the international community "to make sure that Israel complies by stopping this policy of assassinations, incursions, killings, home demolitions, land confiscations, expansion of settlements".

---------------------------------
ROADMAP: WHAT WE KNOW
Phase 1: End of terrorism, normalisation of Palestinian life and Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and end of settlement activity
Phase 2: Creation of an independent Palestinian state; Palestinian elections and international monitoring of compliance with roadmap
Phase 3: Permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel
---------------------------------

I think it really is sad that both sides had the same response - basically "you stop what you're doing, then we'll stop." Thoughts?

[Cyrus]

"ROADMAP: WHAT WE KNOW
Phase 1: End of terrorism, normalisation of Palestinian life and Palestinian political reform; Israeli withdrawal and end of settlement activity
Phase 2: Creation of an independent Palestinian state; Palestinian elections and international monitoring of compliance with roadmap
Phase 3: Permanent status agreement and end of conflict; agreement on final borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements; Arab states to agree to peace deals with Israel."

I don't know where that particular road map came from, but even if it's an accurate one, i.e. what Dubya's camp has in mind, this I say to you :

It is to Israel's interest that #2 never happens, no matter what the concessions it gets or the pressure it comes under. A truly autonomous Palestinian state created anywhere alongside Israel is simply not an option for Israel's leadership. Especially if that state is created anywhere in the West Bank of the Jordan river.

The best solution for Israel is no solution. Just a protracted continuation of the current "hot peace" status. The objective is to ram through Israel's total intransigence and to persuade the Arab world that nothing will be acceptable short of total capitulation to Israel, to the point of it becoming the pre-eminent economic power in the area. The Reform Zionists, such as Zabotinsky, have promoted since the beginning of the previous century the concept of an Iron Wall that must be built between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. Unqualified American support provided all that Israel needed to enforce its expansionist and militarist policy ever since its creation and to build a truly formidable such Wall.

Bottom line : The prospects for peace in Israel and Palestine (a true peace and not some Orwellian misnomer) are not very bright.

(On the contrary, the Cyprus issue seems to be closer to a de facto solution, or at least a way out, than it was since 1974! The Turkish-Cypriot authorities a week ago eased "temporarily" the restriciton of movements between the two areas of the island and this resulted in mass visitings by both Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots to the other side. A truly mass exchange of comings and goings and an effective re-unification of that divided country. Different wall that one.)

[IrishHand]

I don't know where that particular road map came from
It was a part of the BBC article I linked. Per the article itself: The "roadmap" was drafted by envoys from the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia.

[B-Man]

Ridiculous. It is to Israel's best interest to achieve true peace with all of its neighbors, rather than having suicide bombers relentlessly target its discos, coffee shops, marketplaces, etc.

Now, is is possible to make peace with people who really just want to push you into the sea? People who teach their children that suicide bombings are a noble cause, and that suicide bombers will be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise? I sincerely doubt it. Until the Palestinians stop indoctrinating their children with hatred and anti-semitism, there will never be peace, because no matter what concessions Israel makes, a large faction of the Palestinians will not stop their war.

In the absence of a peace agreement and a crackdown on terrorism by the Palestinians that is enforced in deeds, rather than in mere words, a Berlin-type wall to keep the terrorists out is a great idea. You don't see many terrorists coming from Gaza, do you? Most of them come from the West Bank. Something should be done about that.

I would much prefer to see a mutual peace agreement than a unilateral withdrawal by Israel and the building of a wall. But since a mutual peace agreement seems impossible in the current climate, I think a unilateral withdrawal and the construction of a Berlin-type wall is the best achievable solution in the short term.

[Cyrus]

There is nothing to prove about what I stated in my post. What I stated --and beyond-- about Israeli policies has been revealed and extensively documented by western historians, journalists and academics. All of them honest and decent persons to a fault, quite a few of them Jewish.

About the doctrine of the Iron Wall ("Jews must build around Israel an Iron Wall upon which the powerless Arabs shall gaze with impotence"; "Israel must always negotiate with Arabs from a position of absolute and unchallenged military supremacy") : Check out "Israel and the Arab World" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393321126/qid=1051746273/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-1046924-4616169) by Avi Shlaim. See Israel's history as revealed by the major Israeli leaders themselves. Moshe Dayan is particularly and shockingly candid.

About the invention of "Ancient Israel" and the collateral denial of any Palestinian claim to nationality or sovereignty. Check out "The Silencing of Palestinian History" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415107598/qid=1051746408/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books) by Keith Whitelam, ably assisted by Frank Frick, et al.

About the Jerusalem issue and its history of consistent Zionist policy of total annexation, check out "The Struggle for the Holy City" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300091648/qid=1051746674/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books) by Bernard Wasserstein.

If you care for a sober and even-handed history of the 1948 War check out "The War for Palestine : Rewriting the History of 1948" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521794765/qid=1051746832/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books), edited by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim.

The much-maligned and much-abused struggle of the Palestinians for national liberation is extensively and quite revealingly documented in "Search for a State" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198296436/qid=1051746987/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books) by Yezid Sayigh.

As to the infamous Oslo accord myth about Israeli generosity, one could find no braver volume than "The Other Israel: Voices of Refusal and Dissent" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156584789X/qid=1051747292/sr=2-3/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books) edited by Jonathan Shainin, David Grossman, and others.

Two books by Norman Finkelstein, to round things up. The first is about the Holocaust industry, i.e. the shameless flogging of the Holocaust by Zionists in order to promote Israeli policies -- or worse (e.g. to make a few bucks!) : "Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859843239/qid=1051747129/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books). The second is about the distorted reporting about the conflict in the western media and it's quite an eye-opener: "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859843395/qid=1051747292/sr=2-1/102-1046924-4616169?v=glance&s=books).

Really, there is nothing to debate.

[MMMMMM]

Why would it be in Israel's interest to not have peace, if peace were achievable?

[Chris Alger]

Because peace isn't as important as keeping territory acquired by military force. At least, according to many Israelis and every Israeli government to date. That's why they used military force to acquire it in the first place.

[Chris Alger]

"Now, is is possible to make peace with people who really just want to push you into the sea?"

How is it possible for Palestinians to make peace with people who not only want to expel Palestinians from most of their homeland and scatter them about the world but have done exactly that?

"You don't see many terrorists coming from Gaza, do you?"

More than 800 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli security forces since 9/17/2000. You might not see many terrorists coming out of Gaza, but evidently there are quite a few from Israel getting in.

[Cyrus]

"Why would it be in Israel's interest to not have peace, if peace were achievable?"

This is so easy that it doesn't merit a game-theoretic approach : because war and hot peace have yielded rewards that are much beter than what regular peace promises. End of story.

Now, for the underlying assumptions of that logic. First off, we are talking about the Israeli leadership throughout that country's existence (a few excpetions, such as the quickly exonerated Sharett only prove the rule). And not about the Israeli people. The latter have been conditioned to lean towards militarism and brutality in dealing with Palestinians only because of the relative impunity of such behavior. So, it is Israeli leadership, with a reluctant but unable to form an alternative Israeli people behind it, that has forged the steadfast official policy of continuous hot peace interrupted by episodes of violently aggressive wars.

Second, the rewards we are talking about are, once again, defined in the terms of Israeli leaders, who have been acting according to Reformist Zionist ideology. An ideology that explicitly (see Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Writings, inter alia) calls for a confrontational and beligerent Israel, always in attacking mode against the neighbors and in alliance with the World Superpower du jour. Attacking until the Arabs cry 'uncle' and not just sue for peace but completely capitulate.

So, the rewards, in Zionist eyes, are snatching more land from the Holy Land that is "occupied by infidels". The Israeli man in the street could perhaps prefer a modicum of peaceful living instead of more land, more land and even more land (Netanyahu recently hinted at Israel's historical claims that supposedly reach well into Jordan) but when you get that land relatively cheaply (i.e. no punishment) you start to like it. And you start voting for it.

Third, Israelis are no different, whether they are Jews or not, than any other human being, Dr Goebbels to the contrary. As much as it is an obvious obsolete notion to consider any people as Supreme or Chosen, it is also naive to assume that a people will choose to sacrifice something for relatively nothing. The something is the people's stated national objectives; the nothing is what the U.N. demands, i.e. peace.

For an introduction to Israel's steadfastly beligerent strategy in dealing with the Arabs and the Palestinians, as revealed from recently released Israeli documents, I recommend humbly, if repeatedly, Avi Shlaim's ground-breaking "Iron Wall" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393321126/qid=1051771544/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-1046924-4616169).

[Chris Alger]

As long as the multipartisan political consensus in Israel remains unchanged, and as long as it is politically infeasible for the US to impose terms by cutting (or threatening to cut) aid -- in pretty big chunks -- then the road map is slated for the same doom of every other initiative to realize Palistinian rights has met.

The lack of any Israeli government initiative proves that Israel prefers the status quo. The roadmap, according to US diplomatic interpretations, does not eliminate Israel's power to maintain the status quo -- it simply has to induce what Sharon calls Palestinian "terrorism:" any militant or violent resistence to the occupation. Powell appears to agree, arguing that the PA must stop all terrorism and "all violence." To proceed, the Palestinians must lock up or kill all the militants and then see what deal the Israeli militants are willing to provide. Of course, if the Palestinian resistence stops then the whole issue will drop off most US screens. Israel can return to its "death of a thousand cuts" policies against the Palestinians. (Recall that settlements expanded more dramatically under Barak than Netanyahu, as US diplomats and the media trumpeted Israel's "breathtaking" willingness to compromise).

Which isn't to say there won't someday be a Palestinian statelet run by Abu Mazen and his cronies, subject to Israeli oversight. It just won't be the independent country that most Palestinians are willing to accept (e.g., modified Green Line borders, no settlements, a capital in East Jerusalem, right of return, territorial continuity, actual sovereignty, etc.). Anything feasible will be more like the traditional Central American mode of government: well-heeled local elites keeping a lid on the population (in this case, probably hemmed in by their "canton" boundries) for the benefit of the regional bully.

[MMMMMM]

So what do you think about the recent interview with that old sheikh(?) spiritual leader of Hamas? He basically said Hamas was going to fight any peace process and keep sending suicide bombers. How the hell can Israel have peace...with Hamas vowing to attack, and perpetually attacking even if Israel were to withdraw from the settlements?

Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?

Let's say Israel were to withdraw from ALL the "illegal territories" (whatever they might be), but Hamas et al kept attacking relentlessly. Wouldn't you then agree that Israel should wipe out those terrorist leaders and groups?

[Cyrus]

"Why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?"

When they took the land the first time, the PLO were terrorists. Now that they don't want peace, Hamas are terrorists. And they are too! Keep hitting and you're bound to get it right.

"Let's say Israel were to withdraw from ALL the "illegal territories" (whatever they might be)..."

Ah but why don't you try and decipher for me what are the "legitimate territories" of Israel??

And I don't mean the borders recognized by the world community (e.g. Security Council Resolutions, etc), no, what I want are the borders that Israel would be satisfied with, in your opinion.

Take your time before responding. It's a trick question.

[nicky g]

"no matter what concessions Israel makes"
What concessions has Israel ever made? None.

[nicky g]

"Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists? "

How exactly are they supposed to accomplish this? The Israelis have used the intifada to completely destroy the Palestinian security infrastructure, as well as the economy. The fact of the matter is that if Israel entered into sincere and meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians, support for Hamas, which has been high since the intifada began, would tumble, and such organisations can't operate on a large scale without widespread popular support. There would be few volunteers for suicide bombings if the settlers withdrew and the occupation ended.

[Chris Alger]

I can't find any reference to this interview on the web, not even on the ADL website.

The official position of Hamas, last time I looked, was that it will refrain from attacking civilians if Israel does the same. Israel refuses to consider it, so the terrorist war by both sides will likely continue. (Indeed, Israel won't even give the Palestinians the same deal it gave Hizbollah, which spared so many civilians in Lebanon: attacks limited to military targets. The reason? The Palestinians don't have many military targets.)

Here's Sheik Yassin's position on attacking civilians, set forth when Israel released him from prison in 1997. As far as I know, it is unchanged:

"Sheik Yassin Condemns Killing Civilians, Rules Out Joining PA (IINS News Service -Israel-10/18) Recently freed Hamas leader, Sheik Achmed Yassin has condemned the killing of civilians in Israel by his group, Hamas, in remarks published Monday according to the Jordan times.

Yassin also said Hamas can coexist with the Jews. His comments were made during an interview published in the London-based Arabic weekly, Al Wasat.

Asked to comment on Hamas operations that sometimes kill civilians, Sheik Yassin said: "We are a people who condemn the killing of civilians. We don't see this [killing of civilians] is a good thing."

"The civilians must be spared in the conflict," Sheik Yassin, who is also Hamas' spiritual leader, said in the telephone interview from his home in the Gaza Strip.

Sheik Yassin, however, said, Israel should avoid targeting civilians first, and "we will then be the first to do the same."

"Why are they demolishing the houses of civilians and displacing women and children? Why are they putting in jail civilians who have committed no crime? Why are they confiscating the lands and properties of civilians? Why are they strangling the people and leaving them without food or water?" he said."
http://www.cin.org/archives/al-bushra/199710/0130.html

"Shouldn't the Palestinians have to crack down on Hamas? And if they don't, why shouldn't Israel just go and wipe out those Hamas terrorists?"

It might surprise to know that very few people involved in Hamas are also involved in terrorism. The suicide bombers come from the Qassam brigades, a terror outfit associated with Hamas. For the PA to go into Gaza and "crackdown" on the clinics, schools, mosques and other areas where Hamas members are active would amount to a suicidal civil war for the sole benefit of Israel. Why should the PA do that, when Israel refuses to stop subsidizing settlements, demolishing homes, imposing curfews and checkpoints, targeting civilians, and, more fundmantally, refuses to acknowledge that Palestinians have national rights?

[Chris Alger]

Here's an example of the thinking that will probably doom the roadmap, from Safire's column in today's NY Times:

"If Abu Mazen can dismantle the all-or-nothing coalition [of Palestinian rejectionism and militancy], Israel can make peace with his Palestinian Authority. Sharon can help by relaxing some checkpoints, releasing tax revenues and ostentatiously closing the half-dozen illegal settlements."

Israel should make slight compromises (e.g., a half-dozen not-authorized-by-Israel settlements and refrain from "new" settlement "activity", leaving nearly 200 other settlements containing 400,000 settlers), but the PA must win what Safire forthrightly calls the "civil war" against any Palestinians willing to fight against the conquest of what's left of their homeland.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

I don't know what the "legitimate" territories of Israel should be, nor what Israeli leaders would say.

Let's start from the premise, "moral" arguments aside, that Israel exists and will continue to exist. Therefore defined boundaries are necessary. In order for there to be peace, large Palestinian factions cannot be avowed to perpetually attack Israel until Israel ceases to exist--as Hamas has vowed to do. Again, leaving aside all moral questions or implications, it simply isn't practical and it can't work.

If you are suggesting that Israel is as much at fault for not having "defined boundaries" you run up against the argument that Israel has always been attacked regardless of where the boundaries were.

[MMMMMM]

Israel was attacked by Arabs, by Palestinians, by suicide bombers long before the dispute over the territories. Further Hamas has vowed to send suicide bombers into Israel as long as Israel even exists. So it's just not true that if Israel would withdraw from the territories the attacks would cease or lessen. In fact, generally speaking, as soon as Israel lets up in any way, attacks tend to increase in frequency. Israel is not dealing with rational people in Hamas.

[nicky g]

You're ignoring my point. Hamas's terrorist wing cannot function without popular support, and with a Palestinian government that's both equipped and determined to stop it.. That support would disappear if a fair settlement could be reached with. They can vow what they like but they simply would not be able to carry on without the daily propaganda victories handed to them by Israeli terrorising of Palestine.

[MMMMMM]

Israel gave up a lot of land she could have held when the end to the Yom Kippur war was negotiated. The Arabs had planned to annihilate Israel but they lost. In retrospect, I think Israel should perhaps have held that land. The Arabs have always attacked Israel--which represents a mere 1/898 of the total Arab land mass--and Israel has been remarkably, even incredibly restrained in her responses to Arab aggressions.

[nicky g]

Not taking even more of someone else's territory does not consitute a concession.

[nicky g]

"Israel was attacked by Arabs, by Palestinians, by suicide bombers long before the dispute over the territories."

Long before the dispute over these territories you mean. I recall a small dispute over territories occupied by a million Palestinians who were driven out in 1948. That may have had something to do with it. It doesn't matter how small a percentage of the arab world Israel consititutes. That makes little difference to the people who lived their and have been in refugee camps for 55 years.

[MMMMMM]

Well that's a nice thought, but given the Palestinian Arab history of suicide bombing attacks, and the overall Arab history of military attacks on Israel, I don't believe it.

Israel was attacked before the settlements were even in place, Israel has been attacked at every stage along the way.

Suicide bombers are fanatics and not likely to rationally decide that all they want is Israeli withdrawal from the territories. The kids are being taught suicide-bomber glorification in kindergarten. This is a sick society.

The Hamas Charter calls for violence to scuttle any peace process until the right of full return, a euphemism for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Well...'til Monday;-)

[MMMMMM]

Yes it does...the neighboring Arab states were poised and determined to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth...Israel had the right to hold ALL lands gained from their failed war.

The aggressor can't just attack without risking something...all through history when a war of aggression fails, it often loses land along with its failed attempt at conquest. That's sort of the hidden penalty for wars of aggression, and it's how borders have often been redrawn.

If there were no risk of land for the aggressor in war--if the aggressor could try to take another country's land but not risk any of his own--that would be a helluva proposition. Sort of like betting a few dollars to win a house, rather than betting a house against a house. So when the aggressor wages war to take over another country, the aggressor is also betting his own land that he will win. You can't have aggressors getting the best of it all around...having the chance to win another's land but not to lose their own land if they lose the bet (the war).

America was non-imperialistic enough recently to NOT take lands from those who attacked us and lost. We could have taken Japan in WWII after their failed war of aggression against us, but we didn't and instead helped them rebuild.

[nicky g]

"The aggressor can't just attack without risking something...all through history when a war of aggression fails, it often loses land along with its failed attempt at conquest. That's sort of the hidden penalty for wars of aggression, and it's how borders have often been redrawn."

Firstly, That's not how I want to see a modern world work - might is right. I suppose not annexing Lebanon was a concession too.

Furthermore, Israel is not simply interested in holding the land - it wants the land minus its inhabitants. Which is known as ethnic cleansing or genocide. There is no right to expel the inhabitants of an area under any circumstances.

[B-Man]

Asked to comment on Hamas operations that sometimes kill civilians, Sheik Yassin said: "We are a people who condemn the killing of civilians. We don't see this [killing of civilians] is a good thing."

The civilians must be spared in the conflict," Sheik Yassin, who is also Hamas' spiritual leader, said in the telephone interview from his home in the Gaza Strip.

I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons (principally because (a) their is no way to convince those prejudiced against Israel to view the situation reasonably, and (b) that I just don't have the time to post as much as I used to), but I can not sit by and watch you spread these blatant lies.

Palestinian terrorists (including Hamas) have repeatedly specifically targetted civilians. Arafat, the others leaders of the terrorists, and the anti-Israel crowd on this board can spread whatever lies and propaganda they wish, but there is a difference between (a) claiming that you are against the targetting of civilians, and (b) specifically targetting civilians (repeatedly!).

Arafat and his cronies have always said, in effect, "Judge me by what I say, not by what I do." The quotes you listed are further examples of that. People have wised up to the lies, Chris. They just wont fly anymore. Terrorists will be held accountable for their actions, no matter what spin they put on them.

[MMMMMM]

There has always been a huge gulf between what they have done and said.

I'm going away for the weekend so I won't be able to try to refute or clarify more in this thread for a few days at least.

I am really beginning to think that part of the Road Map should include provisions, if necessary, for the U.S. to work with Israel to eliminate all the regional terrorist groups (much like operations in Afhanistan and Iraq, but on a smaller scale). Have Israel withdraw somewhat and build a wall to keep the animals out. Give the Palestinians a full homeland too, but be prepared to zap any terrorist enclaves that emerge. And yes, I'm saying the terrorists are animals--that's how morally and spiritually devolved they have become.

[Cyrus]

"Israel exists and will continue to exist."

Check.

"Therefore defined boundaries are necessary."

Check.

"In order for there to be peace, large Palestinian factions cannot be avowed to perpetually attack Israel .... it simply isn't practical and it can't work."

Check!

...Now, I ask you again : What are the boundaries that would satisfy Israel?

[Cyrus]

"I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons"

I can't fathom your "reasons" but you were in this very thread until I brought forth about half a dozen books, mostly written by eminent Jewish academics, that bring out the lie of official Israeli policy and propaganda.

Without for once claiming that things are black or white and without ever accepting willy-nilly that Arabs and Palestinians are right in all respects, I have tried my best to provide substance and rationality in my discussions. And what do I get in return? Either long texts of personal abuse or tent-folding in a huff. Is it my breath?..

half a dozen tons of evidence (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=249242 &page=8&view=expanded&sb=6&o=14&fpart=)

[Chris Alger]

"I've decided to try to stay out of the Israel/Palestinian threads for a number of reasons (principally because (a) their is no way to convince those prejudiced against Israel to view the situation reasonably"

No, you have it completely backwards. All of the critics of Israel on this site have agreed that Israel should continue to exist in peace and security within recognized boundries. Yet neither you nor Bruce nor M have ever, to my knowledge, agreed that Palestinian Arabs have a legitimate political claim of independence and sovereignty to the land that is now Israel (which their leaders, unlike Israel's, have agreed to compromise), or even any claim of sovereignty to the 22% remaining under Israeli military occupation and tyranny. Since this can only be explained under some racial theory of national supremacy, it is your side that is unreasonably prejudiced against Palestinian Arabs. If I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain just what political rights the Palestinians have to their former homeland, and what Israel should to do to recognize those rights.

"Palestinian terrorists (including Hamas) have repeatedly specifically targetted civilians."

That's correct, and I think its just as wrong as the 100+ "targeted" assasinations carried out by Israel over the last three years, and all the other deliberate murder of civilians, cases of which I've repeatedly pointed out. The only difference is that the Palestinians acknowledge that this is what they're doing, and Israel denies it. Since you assume that Israeli officials must always speak the truth, you maintain that the thousands of civilans Israel has killed over the years are accidental "collateral damage." Here's yet another, taken virtually at random from an very large file: "On Saturday, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian woman and her 12-year-old daughter in a field in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian officials said. The Israeli Army said that the two were in a prohibited zone near Gaza's fence, and that soldiers opened fire on them because they considered them suspicious. “Bethlehem Invaded Again, as Israelis Extend Control,” James Bennet, NYT, 5/27/02.

"there is a difference between (a) claiming that you are against the targetting of civilians, and (b) specifically targetting civilians (repeatedly!)"

Not when you do both at the same time, like Israel does.

"People have wised up to the lies, Chris. They just wont fly anymore. Terrorists will be held accountable for their actions, no matter what spin they put on them."

The only reason that Arafat is out of the picture is that Israel and the US refuse to deal with him. As he's been under house arrest for over a year, and can't say a word without Israeli intelligence learning all about it, it is ludicrous to assume that he's in charge of the terrorist campaign against Israel, a charge that not even Israel or the US has ever made (the State Department expressly denies it). This is merely a staple of the chauvanist pro-Israel press.

[Parmenides]

Nope. I have to support Alger here. The Israelis should quit building settlements on the West Bank, and dismantle those that exist. In exchange, Hamas, The Islamic Jihad, and Fatah must all cease suicide bombing, and pledge to recognize Israel. The issues over the right of return and Jerusalem can be haggled out over the next 5 years.

[MMMMMM]

As I said, I don't know what boundaries would satisfy Israel, but let's presume that they are less than infinite. However the only boundaries that would satisfy Hamas, as Hamas has stated, are the null set = no Israel at all. Therefore, even if undefined, and even if substantially expansive, the Israeli position is more reasonable. Further, Israel has typically expanded in response to Arab aggressions (Golan Heights captured from Syria in 1967 war, etc.).

[MMMMMM]

"The Israelis should quit building settlements on the West Bank, and dismantle those that exist. In exchange, Hamas, The Islamic Jihad, and Fatah must all cease suicide bombing, and pledge to recognize Israel."

I agree with this, but if after all that the terrorists still were to keep attacking relentlessly, they would have to be SWAT-teamed by joint Special Forces, and a wall could be a good idea.

It would be great if the terrorists would do what you suggest, but they were attacking Israel long before the settlements were such a big issue, and they have long said they simply won't stop.

[Cyrus]

"As I said, I don't know what boundaries would satisfy Israel"

Don't worry, you're not alone. No one is the Arab world knows either, I can assure you.

"But let's presume that [the borders that Israel wants] are less than infinite."

Hold it! "Undefined" boundaries are equivalent to infinite. Israel cannot conquer the world but when it effectively has no set boundaries or aspirations for those boundaries, every piece of its neighbor's land is in danger. That's an infinite danger in diplomacy, even is the term if different in math. Don't mix your terms, now.

"The only boundaries that would satisfy Hamas, as Hamas has stated, are the null set = no Israel at all."

First of all, Hamas does not dictate Palestinian policy. Zionist settlers don't dictate Israeli policy (I'm so polite today!) -- we cannot invoke the other side's extremists to justify our actions. We then become the same as the extremists. But even if Hamas was the Palestinian leadership instead of the PLO, how does that justify Israel in being in ever-expaning mode? After all, its issue is supposedly with the domestic disobedient lot, the Palestinians -- not the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Lebanese.

"Therefore, even if undefined, and even if substantially expansive, the Israeli position is more reasonable."

I hope you understand the utter silliness of this statement. I'm sorry but there's just no other way to describe how it reads.

"Further, Israel has typically expanded in response to Arab aggressions (Golan Heights captured from Syria in 1967 war, etc)."

You are stubbornly refusing to read anything I have ever recommended! Anything! The result is that you write such terribly erroneous claims. In the 1967 War, the aggressor was not Syria but someone else; check the historical record, please. Israel attacked first, claiming that an "Arab attack" was imminent, a claim subsequently and thoroughly debunked, by members of the Israeli leadership of that time.

Do yourself a favor, please, and order the eminent Jewish historian's book "The Iron Wall". It's not a fanatical book; it's even-handed and honest; it could do wonders for your perspective.

--Cyrus

[MMMMMM]

I think the Palestinians should get some land back from Israel--whether that amount is 22% (settlements?) I have no idea--and the Palestinians should also get some land back from Jordan (and Syria?) (funny how the Palestinians never send suicide bombers there to try to get their land back). Let them split Jerusalem.

As for Israel itself, no I don't think the Palestinians should or will get it back. The American Indians aren't getting Washington back either (although their claim to it is, or at one time was, probably greater than the Palestinians' claim to Israel). What happened in the Mideast happened for many reasons, and even had the stamp of U.N. approval. There's also plenty of land for the Palestinians between the above three contries holding their designated partitioned lands.

Also, Israel represents I believe 1/980 of the total Arab land mass, and Palestinians are essentially Arabs--they were never considered a separate race or culture until the last 30 years or so of turmoil. Jews on the other hand are a separate culture and have suffered immense persecutions in Arab lands long before the formation of Israel. Seeing as how both parties can't just seem to get along, and both have a long historic claim to the area, it apparently made sense at that time for the world to designate a miniscule chunk of Arab desert as Jewish homeland. Massive return now would essentially destroy Israel. The Palestinians need to give up on this dream because it's just not going to happen. Advocating and practicing violence in order to get this dream will just lead to their failure to get even a state of their own alongside Israel. They need to adjust to a new dream, and work towards that new free state, and then try to make it flourish and grow instead of devoting their energies to fighting an impossible quest which has only brought, and will only bring, greater misery.

[Chris Alger]

"and the Palestinians should also get some land back from Jordan (and Syria?) (funny how the Palestinians never send suicide bombers there to try to get their land back)"

"Palestine" is an ancient geograhic term, derived from "Philistine." For hundreds of years, Palestine described a poltically subdivided "holy land" surrounding the Jordan River until the Ottoman Empire collapsed in WWI and the League of Nations Mandate subdivided it between France and G. Britain in 1922. From 1922 until 1948 (when Israel decalred independence), Palestine officially (and on maps) consisted of what is now (1) Israel within the 1949 armistice or "green" line; (2) the West Bank; (3) the Gaza strip; and (4) the Golan Heights. Since 1967, all of these areas have been under Israeli control. So there is no Palestinian land occupied by Jordan, Syria or Egypt (although there was from 1948 until 1967). None of the land designated by the UN for partition in 1947 (under UNGAR 181) is controlled by any country except Israel.

"Palestinians are essentially Arabs--they were never considered a separate race or culture until the last 30 years or so of turmoil."

This isn't true at all. The roots of Palestinian nationalism, including specific efforts to secure poltical indpendence for Palestinians, are almost as old as Zionism (late 19th century), although both movements varied and tailored their rhetoric and demands to objective conditions and opportunities. Anti-Zionist Palestinian newspapers (such as Filastin) and organizations appeared before WWI. Palestinian nationalism was quite active during the mandatory period.

It is true that Zionists were better organized and more specific in their objectives, but then they had to be because they were seeking to organize mass emmigration to politically displace an indigenous population. They also had the backing of the British rulers of Palestine. Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, had lived in ancestral towns and homes dating as far back as 1,000 years and no official support for their efforts. By 1947, the Zionists had established a "state within a state" while the Palestinians had nothing comparable, and were forced to look to other Arab states for protection, none of which cared much about Palestinian nationalism except when they were outwardly hostile toward it (Jordan). Zionist encroachment overtook the less urgent, less well organized nationalist aspirations of the Palestinians and eventually came to largely define them.

"Palestinians are essentially Arabs--they were never considered a separate race or culture until the last 30 years or so of turmoil."

This is a racist myth. Thanks to Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians (either by forcibly driving them out or forcibly preventing them to return) millions of these "essentially Arab" people have spent four generations in refugee camps or under Israeli military occupation, a plight unique among Arabs. The notion that they have no unique rights or that Israel bears no responsibility for this ethnic cleansing is bizarre, explainable only by ignorance or racist sympathies. Contrast it to the ubiquitous notion in the West that common religous practices render Jews a nation with rights to a land that few of them had ever visited prior to WWII, despite their disbursal around the world and absence of a common tongue until the 20th century (Hebrew being liturgical). Contrast it to the notion that Palestinian Arabs should allow their country to become the national home to the victims of foreign anti-Semtism and the European holocaust. It's a double standard.

From the beginning, Zionists sought to mask, both out of ignorance and for propaganda reasons, the aggressive aspects of their enterprise, what Benny Morris calls the "morally dubious" character of Zionism. After 1949, the Arab states sought to limit the influence of Palestinian nationalism. These efforts, combined with a general ignorance in the West about the Palestinians and their history, obliterated hundreds of thousands of Palestinian nationals from public or even academic discourse until the 1970's. You see this reflected in

-- the old slogans "a land without a people for a people without a land," a settlement movement that made the "desert bloom." In fact 600,000 Palestinian Arabs were permanent residents of the "land without a people" in 1890 and exported agricultrual produce throughout the region;

-- the Balfour Declaration's reference to "non-Jewish" communities in Palestine, defining Palestinians as a function of what they weren't, rather what they were;

-- the constant refrerences in the press, scholarly works and official documents (such as Resolution 242) to Palestinians as "refugees" instead of a nation;

-- Golda Meir's famous comment that the Palestinians don't exist;

-- decades of US diplomacy and political rhetoric making no reference to "Palestinians" as anything but refugees and terrorists;

-- right-wing propaganda and phony scholarship and historiography to prove that Palestinians don't exist ("From Time Immemorial," "Myths and Facts"), or that their claims to nationalism are suspect.

Your reference to 30 years is interesting. 30 years ago Egypt launched the war that lead (in 1978) to the seperate peace between Israel and its most potent adversary. Until then, Palestinians were generally seen in the West, if at all, as tragic byproducts of Israel's security needs. However, when peace with Egypt was followed by aggressive colonization and repression in the West Bank and Gaza and the invasion of Lebanon to crush Palestinian nationalism in order to facilitate control over the occupied territories[1], Palestinian national aspirations and Israel's ruthless, ideological determination to destory them could no longer be hidden from view. Explicit efforts to delegitimize their national identity now largely exist only on the racist fringe, although understated assumptions and half-truths to this effect remain a staple of pro-Israel propaganda (Mona Charen is a good example).

"Jews on the other hand are a separate culture and have suffered immense persecutions in Arab lands long before the formation of Israel."

Another myth. Israel resulted from foreign colonization that in turn directly resulted from 19th century nationalism and European anti-Semitism culminating with the holocaust. It had next to nothing to do with Jewish persecution in Arab lands (anti-Jewish violence during the mandatory period was always a reaction to perceived Zionist encroachments, although often characterized by anti-Semitic rhetoric and atrocities, occasionally returned in-kind by the Jewish settlers). The handful of Jews living in Palestine in the 1890's wanted nothing to do with Zionism, then or afterward, and were generally at odds with the more secular nationalists that followed. It's not about the inability of Jews and Arabs that lived with each other for hundreds of years to "get along," although this has been a standard perception in the US for decades, less so now.

"Massive return now would essentially destroy Israel."

This again reflects the racist double standard that legitimate Palestinian aspirations unfairly impinge on Israel, rather than saying the legitimate rights of both impinge on both. Always lurking behind such statements are images of Bedouin savages hoping to slit the throats of all the Jewish Israelis while they sleep and dumping the bodies into the sea. The same applies to the nonsense about the legitimacy of Israel's exclusivist character (it's "right to exist"), as if any self-respecting people would acknowledge the right of another country to do to it what Israel did to the Palestinians.

It wouldn't "destroy" Israel, but obviously would make it harder if not imposible for Isreal to remain an exclusivist Jewish state. I'm not so sure this is a bad thing -- pre-state Zionists were divided over a "Jewish state" or a Jewish homeland.

I agree that unqualified "return" is a negligible possibility, but Israel refuses to make (hardly) any accomodation at all, and even hard line Palestinians have been willing to negotiate the terms of "right of return." The current pro-Israel consensus in the US is that the Palestinians should unilaterally surrender this right, and that Israel should give nothing in return. This is equally impractical. It reflects not so much the poltical difficulty of making concrete concessions, but of the refusal, for psychological and propaganda reasons, of Zionist ideologues acknowledge and come to terms with the original sin of the nakba .

[1] For years the press portrayed the Lebanese invasion as Israel's reaction to cross-border Palestinian terrorism despite all evidence to the contrary (such as the PLO's scrupulous adherence to the pre-war cease fire). Every now and then, however, you see some acknowledgement of reality. "The [Israeli] government's goal was to install a friendly regime and destroy the Mr. Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization. That, the theory went, would help persuade Palestinians to accept Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip." James Bennett, NY Times, 1/24/2

[Cyrus]

"What happened in the Mideast had the stamp of U.N. approval ... There's plenty of land for the Palestinians between the above three countries ... Israel represents 1/980 of the total Arab land mass ... Palestinians are essentially Arabs ... they were never considered a separate race or culture until the last 30 years or so of turmoil ... Jews have suffered immense persecutions in Arab lands long before the formation of Israel ... Massive return now would essentially destroy Israel."

Dear M,

What is the matter with you ?

Do you have something against reading books?? Maybe you refuse to read something when it is recommended by a person you disagree with. However, this is a recipe for an unnecessary burdened advancement of your knowledge. Just think how far you'd have come (not very!) if you had refused to read any book about Poker that was written by people you never heard before!

I have tried to provide you a short but comprehensive list of books, mostly written by Jewish scholars, highly respected or working in the West, that would disabuse you of the gross delusions and fallacies that you once more exhibit through posts such as the above, about the Middle East conflict.

I beg of you to reconsider and order some of them. Summer is near. The beach beckons. Time for some pleasant and inspirational reading!

Respectfully,

--Cyrus

Summer reading assignment (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=249242 &page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1)

[Chris Alger]

"Yes it does...the neighboring Arab states were poised and determined to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth...Israel had the right to hold ALL lands gained from their failed war."

Aside fromt the racist notion that disenfranchised Palestinians should suffer because of the actions of foreign states because both are Arabic, this is nonsense as a matter of fact. The Egyptian forces in the Sinai were dug into defensive postions and had no intention of attacking Israel. Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian air forces were all destroyed in two days (Egypt's in about 2 hours). The consensus is that the war resulted from poltical miscalculations and that Israel -- which initiated the fighting -- acted as a result of domestic political pressure based on mass fear and hysteria.

"The aggressor can't just attack without risking something...all through history when a war of aggression fails, it often loses land along with its failed attempt at conquest. That's sort of the hidden penalty for wars of aggression, and it's how borders have often been redrawn."

Then Israelis deserve to lose their country because they were the aggressors in 1956? 1978? 1982? Now?

"If there were no risk of land for the aggressor in war--if the aggressor could try to take another country's land but not risk any of his own--that would be a helluva proposition."

No it's not. Outside of the Zionist propaganda sites and organs like Commentary, nobody ever makes this argument, at least not since the Versailles Conference. It's dumb. Taking territory from an aggressor doesn't punish aggression, it just tends to make the next round more ferocious. The corollary is this: a war of aggression lasting many generations should not be concluded until the initial "aggressor" suffers punishment through loss of territory, even when a workable peace is possible or when the initial reasons for the war have expired or become forgotten. In other words, belligerants should fight war for the sake of conquering territory from an aggressor, even if they don't really need it. It's the same thing as saying: a party should wage war to make an abstract point about fault, which is no different than saying that wars should be waged to vindicate national pride.

Your last sentence completely contradicts what you previously said. If aggressors must always be punished, isn't the US at fault for its post-WWII policies for not punishing the aggressors by taking territory that the US neither wants nor needs?

[MMMMMM]

Chris you know damn well that when Israel attacked the joint Arab forces pre-emptively, that was a defensive war, because the Arab forces had even proclaimed that this war would be the war to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth. The 1967 war and the Yom Kippur war were defensive for Israel even if Israel struck first, because it was obvious the Arabs were preparing to launch a massive attack.

To claim that Israel was the "aggressor" in these wars is akin to a schoolkid surrounded by a bunch of bullies who are intent on beating the hell out of him (and they even say so) but he bravely manages to get in the first punch and somehow wins. You would call that kid the agrressor. Your position regarding this is intellectually dishonest and immoral.

Also, your logic is faulty again if you presume I am saying that victorious defenders must take lands from aggressors. I'm saying they sometimes do, and they frequently have the option, and it's a good thing they frequently have the option.

Syria should never get the Golan Heights back, and if Hezbollah starts seriously shelling Israel from a certain vantage point in Lebanon and Lebanon/Syria allow this to continue then Lebanon should lose that vantage point permanently.

[Chris Alger]

"Chris you know damn well that when Israel attacked the joint Arab forces pre-emptively, that was a defensive war, because the Arab forces had even proclaimed that this war would be the war to wipe Israel from the face of the Earth."

No, that's all crap. I doubt you can find a mainstream historian who believes it. "There is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. What he did was embark on an exercise in brinkmanship that was to carry him over the brink." Shlaim, The Iron Wall, p. 237.

The background to the 1967 war is complex, but the precipitating act was the USSR's desire to shore up the Syrian-Egyptian alliance, shaken by a strong antipathy between the two regimes. The Soviets attempted a gambit by falsely claiming that Israeli forces were massed in preparation for an invasion of Syria. Syria then requested that Egypt act to deter the nonexistent "threat." Unable to ignore its superpower patron and ally, Nasser ordered UN peacekeeping troops out of the Sinai and, beginning on 5/14/67, sent in 100,000 troops and 900 tanks of his own over a three week period. At all times, they remained in defensive positions on Egyptian soil.

Israeli leaders weren't alarmed. IDF Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin "assumed -- probably correctly -- that the Egyptian move was deterrrent and political, meant to persude Israel not to attack Syria, and to demonstrate Egypt's fraternity, resolve, and strength to the Arab world. ... Egypt would probably not seek war with Israel; and without the Egyptians, the other Arab states were not likely to march." Morris, Righteous Victims, 302-03.

On May 23, however, Nasser blockaded the Gulf of Eilat from Israeli shipping. Although of negligible strategic importance, the blockade amounted to a classic causus belli for war. These moves, together with blood-curdling rhetoric from the Arab press -- which the Israeli press was only too willing to dish up -- inflamed and terrified the Israeli public, bringing incredible pressure on Prime Minister Eshkol, who bowed to military demands that Israel launch surprise attacks on Egypt and Syria.

The most comprehensive work about the war, Michael Orem's Six Days of War, which came out only last year, describes the following meeting between Nasser and his senior officers on June 2, who were debating whether to withdraw Egyptian planes from their foward bases in the Sinai or leave them there:

"Now it was Nasser's turn to object, stepping in to explain that Egypt could not risk alienating world opinion by assaulting Israel, or jeopardize its newfound rapport with France. Ther were also the beginnings of a dialogue with the United States, and Muheiddin's scheduled visit to Washington. Isreal had suffered a serious strategic defeat [already], but that, too, would be forfeited if Egypt started the war, Nasser reasoned." p. 158. Egpyt was preparing for an Israeli retalliation for the blockade and the Sinai deployment; it had no ability, interest or desire to "wipe Israel from the face of the earth," and certainly never planned one in concert with Syria, who in any case refused to coordinate its own military actions with Egypt's.

Nasser was terrified of having to go to war with Israel becasue he knew first-hand the same facts that led the CIA to conclude that any Israel would probably win any war with Egypt in less than a week. Subsequent events proved this estimate to be conservative.

The first IAF wave was in the air by 7:30 a.m. on June 5. It destroyed nearly half the planes of the Egyptian Air Force and rendered inoperative all six forward Egyptian air bases. As the second wave began to hit what was left, Gen. Ezer Weizman, deputy chief of general staff, telephoned his wife and announced: "We have won the war." An hour later, IAF Commander Gen. Mordechai Hod reported to Rabin (chief of staff) that "The Egyptian Air Force has ceased to exist."

It was only after Israel neutralized any threat of foreign aggressin that it embarked on its conquest of the Sinai, the Golan and the West Bank. Israel was every bit as much of an aggressor during the war as the Arab states.

[MMMMMM]

Well I saw a PBS or History Channel documentary on it less than a year ago.

Nasser actually said this would be the war that would eliminate Israel. My overall impression from the documentary was that the Arab intent was to attack.

[Chris Alger]

You're not going ot get much history from the History Channel.

Egypt scored a lot of points with its prewar belligerence: showing its resolve to the USSR and Syria, getting the UN off Egyptian soil; "righting the wrong" of 1956; demonstrating Arab unity, scaring Israel, focusing the attention of the superpowers on the region, and generally reasserting Nasser's position as the leader of pan-Arabism and anti-Zionism. This was welcome at a time when Egypt's government was in a deep political and financial crisis. So there was a lot of accompanying propaganda and rhetoric (especially from non-government sources or governments that had less at stake, like Iraq) that inflated the Egypt's power and determination to lead the charge and "liberate Palestine," "wipe Israel off the map," etc. Israeli propagandists have endlessly capitalized on this rhetoric, as did the Israeli press of the day, while ignoring the lack of credence given to it by Israel's political and military leadership, who well understood where the balance of power lay.

The internal debates within the Egyptian command, however, show that Egypt was neither planning to attack but also divided over its ability to defend against an Israeli attack. It was unprepared for war and had been drawn into an Israel-Syrian crisis against its will. Its military, already exhausted from the Yemen conflict, was utter unprepared to launch any offensive campaign.

So the basic issue on the Egyptian side was whether to consolidate its gains at the risk of being attacked or to back down and surrender some of the poltiical capital it had acquired. Egypt gambled that Israel would be deterrred from attacking by the US, who in turn would fear a superpower confrontation. But the Americans gave Israel a green light and Egypt lost.

Few countries have suffered such a decisive, nearly instantaneous military defeat, another fact that underscores the absence of an Egyptian "threat" to Israel. In a few days, Egypt lost between 15,000 and 20,000 troops, including some 1,500 officers and pilots. 85% of its military hardware, including 85% of it s fighters and all of its bombers, had been destroyed and much of the remainder -- including over 300 tanks -- had been captured by Israel. The Syrian and Jordanian air forces were also destroyed (prior to Israel's conquest of the occupied territories). The Israel-Arab casualty ratio was an incredible 1:25. Both Egypt and Syria ceased to be significant military powers in the region (and Jordan wasn't to begin with). Israeli generals candidly claimed that they were quite capable of taking Damscus or Cairo had Isreal so desired.

1973 was a different story, but 1967 was a one-sided bloodbath.

[B-Man]

Funny how the person who refers to others on this site as "chauvinists" is the one who is always twisting the facts to make the group that he is prejudiced against look like the aggressors.

Let me get this straight--Egypt forced U.N. peace-keeping troops out of the Sinai, massed its own troops in the Sinai (while Syria was simultaneously moving its troops into position to attack Israel), and ordered a blockade of Israeli shipping... yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!

I know how you feel Chris--Israel has no right to defend itself, ever, under any circumstances. Just as today they are supposed to take no actions whatsoever against or to prevent suicide bombings (they should just sit there and take it!), in 1967 they should not have taken any actions to defend themselves when all of their neighbors were massing troops and preparing to attack (and had already instituted a shipping blockade)--they should have waited for the imminent attack, and then responded (which of course would have made the kill ratio much less favorable than 25:1 in favor of Alger's favorite country).

People like you are the reason there will never be peace in the Middle East. You always blame Israel rather than look at the facts. Under the Alger view, Israel never has any right to defend itself, it is supposed to be a sitting duck for any and all Arab attacks (even after its neighbors started 4 wars against it in 25 years). Unfortunately, neither Israel (nor any sane person) subscribes to the Alger view. Israel isn't going away, Chris, and Israel is always going to defend itself against Arab aggression, whether you like it or not. You are just going to have to face the facts and deal with it.

[Chris Alger]

"yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!"

I didn't say or imply this. Egypt gambled with an insane provocation that Israel couldn't tolerate, and Israel seized the opportunity to crush its only military competition and grab territory it had coveted since 1948. If you're going to accuse me of "twisting facts," you might want to at least read the post.

"Israel has no right to defend itself, ever, under any circumstances"

Ditto.

"Just as today they are supposed to take no actions whatsoever against or to prevent suicide bombings (they should just sit there and take it!)"

Ditto.

"they should not have taken any actions to defend themselves when all of their neighbors were massing troops and preparing to attack (and had already instituted a shipping blockade)--they should have waited for the imminent attack, and then responded."

I am not aware of any evidence that in May-June 1967 any country was "preparing to attack" Israel or that Israel faced any "imminent attack" from any Arab country. The evidence I cited suggests otherwise. If you have something to the contrary, either present it or stop wasting space.

[Cyrus]

"I am not aware of any evidence that in May-June 1967 any country was "preparing to attack" Israel or that Israel faced any "imminent attack" from any Arab country."

Absolutely correct. And this is why I cannot understand the meaning of your phrase "Egypt gambled with an insane provocation that Israel couldn't tolerate".

What "insane provocation"? From as far back as the early 60s, Nasser had assessed (Summit of Alexandria) that Israel was militarily stronger than all its Arab neighbors together. He was urging extreme caution in dealing with Israel, warned Syria not to act foolishly in provoking Israel (he specified that Syria could not count on Egypt's help if it unilaterally caused war) and effectively declared Israel winner of the infamous "water war" with Jordan.

Israel's strategy of escalation on the Syrian front, however, continued apace and was probably the single most important factor in dragging the Middle East to war in June 1967. Here's Moshe Dayan, speaking to the Israeli journalist Rami Tal in 1976 (as published in the Israeli Yediot Aharonot, weekend supplement, 1997) :

<ul type="square">"..Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way : We would send a tractor to plow someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot! And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara [Zvi Tsur, Rabin's predecessor as Chief of Staff] did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seems to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado [David Elazar, OC Northern Command, 1964-69]."[/list]

The old fox must have gotten quite a chuckle out of all this.

[Chris Alger]

In fact, what I wrote was "Israel was every bit as much of an aggressor during the war as the Arab states." You interpreted this as my saying "yet it was Israel that was responsible for starting the 1967 war, not the Arabs!"

Your pathological chauvinism so overwhelms you that you can't tell black from white, leading you to describe simple criticism based on research and Israeli scholarship as "anti-semitic lies" for the crime of poking holes in the propaganda veil erected by Israel apologists. This kind of Stalinism demonstrates no affinity for Israel, Israelis or Jews, but merely a self-abasing compulsion to shore up a mindset that can't tolerate disagreement or dissent.

[MMMMMM]

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel"--Gamel Abdel Nasser, May 27, 1967

"Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map"--President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

[Chris Alger]

The insane part was the Eilat blockade. Nasser gained nothing from this demonstration of power but is was the pretext Israel needed to get US approval for the war (especially since the alternative was enforcing J.F. Dulles's pledge that US force would keep the straits open, something that LBJ was hardly inclined to do given the current crisis over Vietnam). All of Nasser's actions can further be faulted for instigating the Arab propagandists and warmongers -- some of whom served under Nasser -- who were chomping at the bit for a major confrontation with Israel.

Nasser's poltiical acumen in reading the Israeli domestic situation was horrible. Regardless of what Israeli officials thought, the Israeli public was terrified of a repeat of the 1948 war, still fresh in the minds of many. People were digging trenches and bomb shelters in their backyards. Israeli political cartoons showed Eshkol unable to make up his mind, Nasser in tank surprising Eshkol in bed. Begin had to be brought into the government to help neutralize the right. Nasser's hope that Israel would sit back and take it simply because he wasn't really threatening Israel was just as deluded as Krushchev's belief that the US would accept missiles in Cuba to counter US aggression there.

Nasser misread the US situation and underestimated the extent to which his relations with the US had irretrievably soured. LBJ and his advisors were no doubt delighted at the prospect of Israel alone clobbering Egypt and Syria.

Finally, Nasser ignored the inability of his top commanders to function properly and the inability of his military to use its hardware. His armor and infantry were left in the Sinai without orders or operational plans, making them sitting ducks. Doing that during the course of ratcheting up tensions is just nuts.

Where can I get the full text of a Tal interview translation? Shlaim contends that Dayan was partly exaggerating in order to embarrass his poltical successors after his fall from grace.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, they merely restated the same failed, impotent Arab policy since 1948 that made them a diplomtic laughing stock, which Isreali officials, by refusing to consider any comproimse over the Palestinian situation in order to obtain permanent peace, were perfectly content to live with.

Note Iraq. The country that would barely appear in hostilities and with little to lose.

[MMMMMM]

Well I just went to eBay and looked for The Iron Wall and White Out but found neither; I'll keep an eye out for them both (since I like to order cheap on eBay or from Dover whenever possible).

Meanwhile I'm looking forward to seeing how you and Alger reconcile the quotes of Nasser and Aref (just prior to the 1967 war) with your positions.

[MMMMMM]

Don't their words support the idea that they were indeed preparing to launch a massive attack on Israel, and that therefore Israel acted pre-emptively in self-defense?

[Chris Alger]

For the reasons I already stated, obviously not.

[MMMMMM]

Just prior to the war, and during the Arab build-up of forces, both the leaders of Egypt and Syria said that their objective was the annihilation of Israel--just how can that possibly be construed as to not signify intent?

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel"--Gamel Abdel Nasser, May 27, 1967

"Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map"--President Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967

These words go beyond mere brinksmanship, don't they?

[Cyrus]

"I just went to eBay and looked for Iron Wall and White Out but found neither."

Their owners don't want to part with 'em. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

"I like to order cheap on eBay or from Dover whenever possible."

Keep looking. If necessary, choose Wall over White; 'tis not the season to be jolly.

"I'm looking forward to seeing how you .... reconcile the quotes of Nasser and Aref (just prior to the 1967 war) with your positions."

See IW, pp. 236-241 /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Chris Alger]

If you can't respond to the facts in the argument, why waste time responding? For the umpteenth time, just because Abdel Gamal Nasser said it doesn't necessarily make it so. Duh.

And how is the "President" of Iraq the "leader" of Syria?

[MMMMMM]

So you are claiming that Nasser and Aref's words were just for show?

If they were (which I find ridiculously hard to believe, even in the context of your argument), then let's see if Kim Jong-il makes a similar idiotic mistake soon. He's getting pretty close to it.

I meant Iraq, not Syria. Iraq was moving forces towards the border too.

[Cyrus]

The U.S. will do nothing about North Korea, beyond the application of diplomatic pressure.

"Let's see if Kim Jong-il makes a similar idiotic mistake soon [and makes a provocative public proclamation]. He's getting pretty close to it."

North Korea has no territorial issue to contest with the South, as is the case with Kashmir that riles India &amp; Pakistan. But the inflammatory talk is there! I haven't made a web search but I would speculate that Kim has made and continues to make threatening and disparaging statements about the United States. I'm sure that those numerous military or civilian parades are good occasions for such speeches. At the very least Pyong Yang Radio must be a Moscow Radio 1950s Oldies But Goodies Extravaganza.

But, if it's true that the North Koreans are mouthing off, now the U.S. should go to war on the basis of provocative or inflammatory statements??! Oh, boy.

"So you are claiming that Nasser and Aref's words were just for show?"

The reality in the Arab camp before (and especially after) the 6-Day War was very different, almost the opposite of what public postures were indicating. Practically every party was lying; briefly stated, after the war, Israel declared it wanted peace and the Arabs revenge; in reality, they both wanted the opposite of what they said they wanted. The political faction in Israel that wanted to transform the military gains into political accomodation with the Arabs was shoved aside; the Arab governments started sending earnest but very secret feelers for peace and a settlement of the Palestinian issue. The diplomatic archives demonstrate as much. (Keep searching eBay.)

"I meant Iraq, not Syria. Iraq was moving forces towards the border too."

What border? Iraq never had no borders with Israel. What are you talking about?

[MMMMMM]

North Korea's words have been inflammatory and threatening, but not as clearly as those of Nasser and Aref. North Korea's threatening words have largely been contingent, 'if' type statements, while Nasser and Aref said that their aim was the complete destruction of Israel.

However North Korea recently said they would begin testing and/or selling nukes. Since the DPRK is a large supplier of weapons to some of the most unstable regimes in the world, this prompted Powell to respond when asked if the USA would permit this, "Absolutely not."

Yes, I think war can conceivably be justified and prudent in response to very serious threats, especially if actions are taking place which seem to back up those threats.

By the way, if you are in a bar and some drunken goon says he is going to punch you and means it, and all "diplomatic options" have already been exhausted and there is no way out, wouldn't you try to take him out first while he's still talking about it?

We simply cannot allow North Korea to keep building nukes and/or selling them to unstable regimes. Of course we'll try diplomatic options extensively, but if the DPRK refuses to alter from its present course, I believe we will go to war with them. Fools never learn from the experiences of others; hopefully Kim is not truly a fool.

Re: Iraq and "border": OK, not the border. Same essential point though.

[B-Man]

The reality in the Arab camp before (and especially after) the 6-Day War was very different, almost the opposite of what public postures were indicating. Practically every party was lying; briefly stated, after the war, Israel declared it wanted peace and the Arabs revenge; in reality, they both wanted the opposite of what they said they wanted.

Amazing that you can write this crap. Have you actually brainwashed yourself into believing the anti-Israel lies you and Alger constantly spew?

I suppose the Arabs wanted peace in 1948, too, when every country in the region simultaneously declared war on, and attacked, Israel upon it formation. And in 1972, when the Arabs sneak-attacked Israel on the holiest day of the year for Jews (the double standard is outrageous--if Israel ever started a war during Ramadan, the reaction would be overwhelming. But the Arabs specifically choose to attack on the holiest day of the year for Jews... and they "want peace"!).

The fact is, the Arabs never wanted peace with Israel until Camp David/1978. Even then, it was only Egypt, and the peace between Israel and Egypt has been a cold one (though still preferable to war), though it has endured. All Israel ever wanted was to live in peace with its neighbors. But if they are going to be hostile, they are going to pay the price.

[Parmenides]

The Alger brothers:Irish Hand and Alger, are very anti-Jewish. Alger has posted flat racist slurs in sick attempts at comedy. Irish Hand has supported suicide bombing and stupidly believes that he can call W.Bush a Nazi and remain in the Navy. Cyrus is somehow related to them. They use this forum to keep in touch and spout propaganda.

Some of their arguments, however, have merit. Others are clearly garbage.

[IrishHand]

Jimbo is right for once - you can be a funny little man. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[IrishHand]

North Korea has no territorial issue to contest with the South

I assume you mean other than wanting to absorb it and restore Korea to its proper, unified state - under the benevolvent leadership of the region currently known as "North Korea".

[Cyrus]

"I assume you mean [North Korea has no territorial issue to contest with the South] other than wanting to absorb it and restore Korea to its proper, unified state - under the benevolvent leadership of the region currently known as "North Korea"."

I thought I clearly meant that North Korea has no territorial issue to contest with the South now. Sure there was an attempt by the Communist north to "unify" the country in the 50s and the U.N. rightly intervened. Militarily too.

But, right now, and for the last decade or so, if I'm not mistaken, there are serious talks between the North and the South about peacefully unifying the two areas/countries. I admit I'm puzzled as to how this is gonna be achieved, since neither regime can be expected to give up its political philosophy of governing, nor to give up its rule over the respective Korean portion. But talk they do.

A little background perspective: The Korean situation, like similar others, could have been straightened out, even way back then, to its true nature, i.e. that of a national liberation struggle. In a significant number of occasions, the anti-Communist obsessions of the British and the Americans cost the West the alienation (and eventual hostility) of local liberation movements and their subsequent full capitulation to communist ideology.

Cases in point, Greece post-WWII, Vietnam after the French were ready to leave, Cuba when Batista fell, Korea when it was liberated from the brutal Japanese, etc. National aspirations unify people more than political philosophies : When the Nazis invaded the Ukraine, its people, having suffered the tremendous oppression of their national character under Stalin, not to mention a succession of famines, were ready to welcome (even) the Nazis as liberators! (The first "routine" mass executions by the Nazis soon put an end to all such notions and turned the whole Ukraine into a bitter ally of Russia in its struggle against the invader...)

[Cyrus]

"Amazing that you can write this crap. Have you actually brainwashed yourself into believing the anti-Israel lies you and Alger constantly spew?"

I wouldn't give Alger that much of a compliment but it's your privilege to do so.

As to what you allege are "lies", your posts have shown a gigantic blind spot when it comes down to anything that is disparaging in the slightest towards Israel. Yet here you are, using words like "brainwashed" so often and so casually...

[IrishHand]

Sure - North Korea would prefer that their assimilation of South Korea be peaceful - but they wouldn't be too concerned about alternative solutions to what their government certainly does see as a present problem. I have a lot of friends stationed in and around South Korea, and from what I've gathered both from my readings and my conversations with them, North Korea has every intention of creating a unified Korea one way or another.

If nothing else, they should have learned recently that they'd better get their nukes in order asap unless they want to get invaded sooner or later by a rogue state. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"I have a lot of friends stationed in and around South Korea, and from what I've gathered both from my readings and my conversations with them, North Korea has every intention of creating a unified Korea one way or another."

Possibly, although I'd trust that insight more if your friends were serving in the North Korean sector. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

But, seriously, what are your friends telling you about how the South Koreans feel about a possible unification? This should be very interesting. Personally, I can't see how unification is possible, yet the South is having formal talks about it.

[Cyrus]

When I play blackjack and they have shorted a couple of cards off, it usually takes me some time before I realize I'm not playing against a full deck.

It takes me only a minute in this website.

[B-Man]

I wouldn't give Alger that much of a compliment but it's your privilege to do so.

It wasn't a compliment.

As to what you allege are "lies", your posts have shown a gigantic blind spot when it comes down to anything that is disparaging in the slightest towards Israel. Yet here you are, using words like "brainwashed" so often and so casually...

And your posts have shown a consistent bias against Israel (and the U.S., but thats a subject for another day). Thats what I have a problem with, your bias against Israel. For you to scold others for having a "blind spot" is laughable. Look in the mirror.

I also note you failed to respond to my rebuttal to your allegations that the Arabs wanted peace (despite their actions which show just the opposite).

[IrishHand]

It's my understanding that most South Koreans would like to see a unified Korea as well. Of course, they're not all that excited about living under the North Korean regime and thus the negotiations.

[Cyrus]

"It wasn't a compliment."

I didn't take it as one. (You are in too much of a rush.)

"I also note you failed to respond to my rebuttal to your allegations that the Arabs wanted peace, despite their actions which show just the opposite."

I have "rebutted" that argument until it was butt-painful to watch! You only have to follow my posts, or, at least, pretend not to ignore them. (Would it be too much to ask you to peruse some books (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=exchange&amp;Number=249242 &amp;page=8&amp;view=expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=) I recommended in the course of one such 'rebuttal"? They ain't written by no goyim, either. It would be, huh?)

"Your posts have shown a consistent bias"

Thanks, kettle. More projecting. More unintentionally revealing posts.

...This must be the millionth time I have had that kind of non-argument with a fanatical Zionist on the web! You might be in line for a bonus.

[Chris Alger]

"All Israel ever wanted was to live in peace with its neighbors."

Since your cracking a book in English is evidently out of the question, you might as well at least be aware of some of the Hebrew-language scholarship in Isreal.

From earlier this week in Ha'aretz, a review of University of Haifa Prof. Motti Golani's new book:

Blessings of war
By Reuven Pedatzur

Has Israel always aspired to peace? Just the opposite, argues a new analysis of Israeli military culture.

"Milhamot lo Korot Mei'atzman" ("Wars Don't Just Happen") by Motti Golani, Modan, 274 pages, NIS 76

Motti Golani's book is a fascinating, personal, academic and - to a large extent - intuitive journey into the depths of those characteristics of Israeli culture which together create what he diagnoses as the addiction of Israelis to power. Golani's basic assumption, which - it should be emphasized here - is harshly critical, is that Israeli society has adopted, with almost no questions asked, the "culture of power" and the belief that the relationship between Israel and its neighbors must be based almost exclusively on military might. Golani sums up his thesis in a nutshell: "Since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, its leadership has generally preferred to use force to solve problems, not all of which have been life-and-death issues."

The most prominent and most controversial argument that Golani presents seems to be that "peace has not always headed Israel's list of priorities and war has not always headed its neighbors' list of priorities. Moreover, at certain stages ... Israel has preferred war to any other option. Between 1949 and 1973, Israel gave the impression that it feared peace more than it feared war."

_____________________________________
BTW, the "Yom Kippur" war was in 1973, not 1972.

[B-Man]

BTW, the "Yom Kippur" war was in 1973, not 1972.

You are correct. Amazing that I screwed that up, after all, 1972 was the year of the Munich Olympics, and of course the year that Arafat's Black September slaughtered the Israeli athletes in Munich. Remind me again in which year it was that the Arabs wanted peace?

I'll try to keep my years straight from now on--1972, Black September, 1973, Yom Kippur war...

[nicky g]

B-Man: "All Israel ever wanted was to live in peace with its neighbors."

This is blatantly absurd, but even if it were true: the contentious issue is not how Israel feels towards its neighbours but how it feels towards the Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories and the Palestinians that used to live on the land it took from them. Quite clearly Israel (I mean successive Israeli governments/the Israeli military establishment) has never wanted to live peacefully alongside these people - it wants them gone in order to achieve its absurd and racist goal of a culturally homogenous state, and has been was happy to do whatever it needs to grab their homes and get rid of them.

[nicky g]

And I suppose the years Ariel Sharon sent the Falange in to slaughter the civilian inhabitants of Sabra and Chatila, or the year when he and his troops massacred the inhabitants of Qibya (or indeed the year of Deir Yassin) were just blips on Israel's otherwise admirable calendar of peace?

[MMMMMM]

nicky, let me bring up a related point.

For long ages before the formation of Israel, the Jews had been persecuted and oppressed in the Middle East by Arabs. You say their goal of a homogeneous state is absurd. However from their perspective, it might seem the only way to ensure living without oppression by Arabs.

When the Jews were scattered throughout the Arab lands, they were very much considered and treated as second-class citizens (indeed, Islam has often considered non-Muslims as the 'dhimmitude'--a group not entitled to the same rights or political powers as Muslims. And in particular the Arabs have oppressed and hated the Jews). So the Jewish goal of having a tiny state of their own in which they can live unmolested may actually be more justified and reasonable than it appears. You are calling it a racist goal--and it may be--but if the alternative was being on the short end of the racist stick interminably, well, I can sort of see their point. Would you really want to live as a minority among masses of people who have oppressed you and your ancestors forever, and who continue to preach, in mainstream mosques, things such as "Oh Allah, deliver us from the Jews, destroy them for us, the sons of pigs and monkeys. Kill them please, O Allah." This sort of speech emanates from some of the highest ranking imams and religious clerics across much of the Middle East. So can you really blame the Jews for wanting to be apart from the Arabs, who have long hated and oppressed them? If you want to call that racist, fine, but at least there's a reason for the Jewish desire for isolation from Arabs.

[andyfox]

Jews were treated much better in the Arab lands than they were in the European Christian lands. After all, it was their persecution in Europe that was the genesis of Herzl's plan for a Jewish state.

Jews were not on the short end of the stick interminably. There were times in their history when they were not on the short end of the stick, when they prospered and thrived in various envvironments. It was the job of the early Zionists to convince the Jews of the world that their history had been one long struggle. Salo Baron called this the lachrymose view of their history.

The problem for the Zionists and for the state of Israel was that there were already people who lived where they colonized. They treated these people as non-people, non-existent, as most colonizers do.

Now they've been at each other for 100 years. The hatred the Palestinian Arabs feel for the jews comes from this 100 years of disharmony.

[Cyrus]

Since you are not convinced by my arguments (and until that eBay package arraives!), you'd be well served by reading andyfox's posts. The contentions of your above post, for instance are adequately dealt with in the reply posted by andyfox.

Sample howler from yours : "For long ages before the formation of Israel, the Jews had been persecuted and oppressed in the Middle East by Arabs."

My man, how can the Jews have been persecuted when they were not even there ?? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

The number of Jews, before the 19th century, in the greater Middle East area is dwarfed by the number of Jews living in Europe. The primary reason for the cultural advancement of the Jewish people, an advance much more pronounced than the Arab world's, in the last millenium, has been exactly the proximity of Jews to the western, as opposed to the middle eastern, ways of life, as a result of them, well, living there!

[MMMMMM]

Agreed that more Jews lived in Europe, but that doesn't mean that those living in Arab lands weren't oppressed.

[John Cole]

Parmenides might like Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum, which is just the ticket for those interested in grand conspiracy master narratives. You might want to recommend it, Cyrus.

John

[Cyrus]

"Agreed that more Jews lived in Europe, but that doesn't mean that those living in Arab lands weren't oppressed."

Would it be too much to ask you also to peruse a book about Statistics, now that you're on a reading streak?

The chapter about weighted averages would be essential, it looks like.

[Chris Alger]

This whole discussion is absurd. The roots of Zionism, Israeli statehood and the concurrent displacement and expulsion of Palestinian Arabs don't have a thing to do with Jews that lived in the Middle East before the European/Russian emmigrations from 1880-1948. With the exception of a small community concentrated in Jerusalem (about 15,000 people in 1880), the Sephardic Jews that emmigrated to Israel did so after statehood had been accomplished.

The idea that the conflict is some sort of age-old struggle between Arab and Jew arose in efforts to discuss the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians without having to admit two things: (1) Palestinian history, displacement, rights or political aspirations, or indeed the existence of Palestinians at all; and (2) the racial supremacist, colonial and imperialst origins of Zionism and Israel. As a result, there has been a lot of silly propagands to the effect that since (some) Jews have lived there forever, (all) Jews must have national roots in Palestine that are just as deep (and probably deeper) than the Arabs. These claims always omit that the pre-Zionist Jewish population of Palestine was (a) more religious than nationalistic, and destined to oppose Zionism and (b) less than 5% of the whole.

The propagandists then add that Jews have always been a mistreated minority in the Arab world to suggest that Israel arose from a defensive need for a resident minority to protect itself from discrimination. This isn't the way it happened. Jjust last week, however, I came across yet another dumb column with the obligatory parenthetical reference to Jews have "always" lived in Palestine, without any other clarification, in order to foster the image of a thousand-year conflict with no foreseeable solution.

The more rational version of this line actually emphasizes the opposite, that Jews and Arabs had lived peacefully until Arab nationalism and Zionism clashed head-on after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, because of the perceived need to "fight over" the same turf.

But this is equally disengenuous as it groups anti-Zionist Arab nationalist Palestinians of the pre-Israel era in the same category as the Palestinians that suffered as a result of Israel's creation and expansion, that saw their homes and villages expropriated or destroyed, that have had to live in refugee camps or under military occupation, or both, and that have been struggling, these last 60 years, to accomplish particular political goals. One reason they haven't succeeded is the perception that they have no particular grievances or agenda other than wanting to drive Israel "into the sea," which is used to rationalize Israel's refusal to accomodate them at any level other than as blood enemies. It is probably the most persistent general refrain in the media since 1967, at least until recently, and has permanently nested in the minds of the ignorant Zionist fringe.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

You aren't trying to say that the degree of oppression Jews suffered in the Middle East is somehow lessened by the degree of oppression Jews suffered in Europe, are you?

Since I can't imagine that's your intended point, would you mind clarifying just what point you are trying to make?

[nicky g]

As manypeople have pointed out, prior to the 2nd half of the 20th century Jews were treated much better in Arab countries than in Europe, and Islam was historically much, much more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity. There have never been anti-semtitic atrocities in the Arab world to compare with what has happened in Europe, although there have certainly been atrocities. Yet many Jews are perfectly content to live amongst Europeans. The problems leading to the creation of Israel were entirely down to European persecution, and nothing to do with Arabs.
The other point that I'd like to make is that even with the return of the refugees to Israel, Israeli Jews would not be in a minority, and would not have to live as second-class citizens or as a persecuted minority. There was scope for large-scale Jewish emigration to Palestine after the war without the creation of a Jewish state with no room for the people who had lived their for centuries. The idea of a state founded on race and ethnicity in is an absurd anachromism in this age of migration and globalisation, and should be abandoned in favour of a multicultural state with room for both peoples who have a claim to the land.

[B-Man]

should be abandoned in favour of a multicultural state with room for both peoples

This will never happen, not in our lifetimes anyway. It is just not realistic given the level of animosity between the Israelis and the Palestinians. If I lived in Israel, there is no way I would tolerate the immigration of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people who want to see me wiped off the face of the Earth. That would be downright stupid from the point of view of survival.

Every country has a right to set its own immigration laws. What if Mexicans start committing terorrist attacks against Texas and demand the right to live there? Is the U.S. supposed to let them in? And the scale of the alleged "right of return" goes far beyond that.

Furthermore, I think it would be a recipe for disaster.

I know you feel differently, but ultimately what you and I think doesn't matter, because Israel will never agree to a right of return. All that is is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel (which is what the Arabs wanted all along). I think everyone's energy is better spent on a peace plan that has some realistic chance of succeeding (if that is even possible).

[Cyrus]

M, for the answer to your question, read Chris Alger's post. The point is that whatever oppression the Jews suffered when they were in the Middle East area (actually very little --plus-- they were very few in the area in any case) was nothing compared to what the Jews suffered in the hands of Spaniards, Poles, French, Germans, Austrians, Russians, et al -- i.e. the Europeans.

Trying to reposition the Jewish-Arab current and only recent conflict in terms of some kind of 'ancient enmity' is totally preposterous!

If anything, it shows a lack of measure. Hence the comment about weighing your data.

Take care.

[MMMMMM]

It's just that comparing the various degrees to which different groups have oppressed the Jews is irrelevant to the point. The Jews have historically been oppressed by Europeans, Russians, Arabs and Muslims--so their desire to have their own tiny little Jewish state is at least understandable.

nickyg seemed to think it was racist (ok, so what?) and absurd (rather, it is understandable, IMO).

[MMMMMM]

You speak of a multicultural state as if it is a foregone morally superior conclusion. However since many Palestinians/Arabs hate the Jews and wish to see them exterminated (just listen to some of the sermons in mosques all over the Middle East to know that this is widely true), it would be suicidal and foolish for the Jews to accept such a thing.

Also, the two cultures are very different with the Jewish culture being far more advanced and rational. Paslestinians routinely practice such barbaric customs as "honor killings" wherein the female family member is killed by other family members often on mere rumor of infidelity or premarital sex, as this is thought to bring irreparable harm to the family name (this is also a significant practice in Jordan and some other Arab lands, and Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned this custom). There are other barbaric customs too, practiced by many Arabs and Muslims...so just WHY would the Jews want to live in intimate proximity with a people who practice barbaric customs and who also wish to see the them exterminated?

[Cyrus]

I'm still here because you persist in some serious misconceptions.

"It's just that comparing the various degrees to which different groups have oppressed the Jews is irrelevant to the point."

It becomes relevant when you start about how the Jews have suffered at the hands of Arabs or Muslims historically. (As if that would be an excuse for anything.) Well, they haven't. Simple as that.

"The Jews have historically been oppressed by Europeans, Russians, Arabs and Muslims."

Not to the same extent at all! It is important to note the extreme, gigantic, colossal difference between systematic pogroms in Europe and sporadic mistreatment in the Middle East.

You see, if, after World War II, the Jews had taken over the area of Poland and Germany that runs from Auschwitz to Mauthausen, I would find that very fitting and quite just!

"..so their desire to have their own tiny little Jewish state is at least understandable."

On the contrary! The Jews should have been the first to proclaim theirs a nation for everyone under the sun! No ethnic or religious distinction at all! A prototype for a united states of the Middle East. I for one would be ready to fight for defending such a Jewish country, even though I'm not a Jew. (In a word, the Jews have left us down. A historical downturn of epic irony.)

"..it was racist (ok, so what?)"

"So what"??!

There's never "so what?" with Racism, my man. Whether it comes from a Zionist (the Chosen People), an Aryan Nationalist (White People Only!), a Black separatist (Kill Whitey!), an Arab Nazi (yes, there is a Nazi Party in Syria!), or whatever. Be alert to racism wherever it may come from. This bell tolls for you.

[MMMMMM]

I think the Jews have been oppressed historically by Arabs--even Mohammed led military a campaign against them, if I'm not mistaken.

Regarding racism: there are two types, one far more pernicious than the other. If a group wants to exterminate another race, or oppress another race, that is offensive in nature. However, if as in the case of the Jews wanting their own little space due to having been oppressed throughout the ages, that is defensive in nature. The two are quite different.

[Chris Alger]

Iron Wall (which is an argumentative survey of just the diplomatic history) is available from Amazon, new, for $12.57 in paper.

If you are seriously interested in a good introduction to the conflict, Edward Said's Question of Palestine is still in most bookstores.

[Cyrus]

"I think the Jews have been oppressed historically by Arabs--even Mohammed led military a campaign against them, if I'm not mistaken."

You refuse to understand the colossal difference (how many words should I use to ram this through? "Colossal" not enough?) between the European oppression of Jews which consisted of systematic pogroms, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, before the Nazis came about, and the sporadic, nationalistic mistreatment, including the occasional war, conducted in the greater Middle East area -- which area, in case you heard of The Diaspora, was rather empty of Jews to begin with.

If you want to persist to your completely erroneous and historically false point of view, you are entitled to it. I will not add another word about this.

"Regarding racism: there are two types, one far more pernicious than the other. If a group wants to exterminate another race, or oppress another race, that is offensive in nature. However, if as in the case of the Jews wanting their own little space due to having been oppressed throughout the ages, that is defensive in nature. The two are quite different."

You are confusing the reason with the result. Please read this carefully : Every form of modern racism, and that begins from centuries ago, has its theoretical bases on defensive purposes! Aryans want to defend themselves against pollution by inferior blood; Serbs want to defend themselves against the West's injustice and Croatian atrocities; Croats vice versa; Black American racism wants to defend Blacks against Whitey; White American racism wants to defend the Whites' earned place in society (and the White Woman); etc, etc, etc.

So the reasons are generally cloaked in some glorious need to "Defend a Race" -- not to blatantly impose its will on the rest. (Some bull about "Divine Destiny" is usually invoked to link Defense with Supremacy, in most racisms.) The result however, is always oppressive, always barbaric, always murderous. And Zionism, a clearly supremacist ideology in its Reformed strain, is a trivial example of a racist ideology.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge a difference between the oppressions of the Jews at the hands of the Europeans vs. the Arabs--of course there are differences. I'm just saying I more or less understand the Jews' wishing to be insulated from non-Jews since so many different types of non-Jews have so badly mistreated them.

Just because group A may have oppressed the Jews more than did group B, doesn't mean that the Jews would (or should) want to live with group B--especially if group B currently wishes them great harm.

I agree that the Zionist philosophy is less than ideal. However, when all those other barbarians (read "pogrom Russians", Nazis, Islamofascists--and their like-minded though less activist successors) stop oppressing the Jews and wishing them great ill--when that happens, then I'll say I no longer understand the Jewish desire to live apart.

Your point about the seeds of racism staring defensively and the end result generally being bad has some merit. However can't you also see why the Jews would want to be insulated from others, since others have so long oppressed them and/or currently wish them ill?

[nicky g]

"Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned this custom. "

LOL! See what Human Rights Watch has to say about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It's not very positive.

About 1/6 of the current population of Israel consists of Israeli Arabs, the descendants of the minority of Palestinians who were not foces out in 1948 and after. There are very very few attacks on Israelis from these people (despite the shooting of them at unarmed protests, the removal of their representatives from the Knesset etc). These people clearly don't want to kill Jews or drive Israel into the sea. The populations of the West Bank and Gaza hate Israel because of the illegal occupation and the refusal to deal with the Palestinaain refugee problem in any way, and not because they are irrational antisemites. The coexistence of Israeli Arabs with Jews in Israel clearly demostrates that a multicultural state would not be suicidal for Israeli Jews. The fact that the return of those refugees who wanted to come back would prevent Zionists from having their ideal state is not a good enough reasn to deny these people their rights.

[IrishHand]

the two cultures are very different with the Jewish culture being far more advanced and rational
At least now you're starting to be more honest with your biases and prejudices. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

nicky, I'm just saying I understand why the Israelis would want an insular, separated state. That's what I was saying in the sub-thread with Cyrus too. I'm saying I understand it and can't really blame them for wanting to live apart. I'm not saying that everytrhing they do is right, or trhat all Palestinians wish them ill. However enough Palestinians and Arabs do wish them great ill that their desire for separation is quite understandable.

[MMMMMM]

I don't think it's indicative of bias to recognize facts;-)

Suppose some tribe still exists somewhere which practices human sacrifice, cannibalism and black magic. To say that their culture is less advanced and less rational is bias?

Likewise, although the gulf may be less, the Islamic/Arab cultures today are less advanced, more superstitious and less rational than Western cultures. Ideologically they are, to a large extent, still mired in the 7th century.

[B-Man]

The populations of the West Bank and Gaza hate Israel...

At least now you are starting to recognize some facts.

and not because they are irrational antisemites.

Really? Is calling Jews the sons of monkeys and pigs rational? What about teaching your children that suicide bombing is a noble act? Dressing up children as suicide bombers? Teaching that suicide bombers who kill Jews will be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise?

What makes you the expert on the rationale for the hatred of the Palestinians toward Israel? Your statement that this isn't based on anti-semitism would be laughable if it wasn't so sickening. Take off the rose-colored glasses, Nicky.

[Cyrus]

"...although the gulf may be less, the Islamic/Arab cultures today are less advanced, more superstitious and less rational than Western cultures. Ideologically they are, to a large extent, still mired in the 7th century."

You are quite right about western culture, and that includes current jewish culture, as being more advanced than most other cultures, including the islamic religion and the arab political culture. This cannot rationally be contested.

The question then becomes one of proportion.

No, not how far backwards the others are ! (The Arabs, btw, are not in the equivalent of the 7th century, M, not by any means!)

But how far advanced are we! And how far advanced we are, will be demonstrated by how we treat those fellow contemporaries of ours that are still dragging their feet. Are we gonna treat them as Captain Cook treated the Polynesian cannibals? Or as Cortez the Aztec "barbarians"? In other words, are we gonna behave like we are still in the 15th century or so?

Or are we gonna act like we're supposed to act? Kinda like being in the, you know, 21st century? With the necessary humility, frontier-less spirit and universalism?

Guess not. So far, all the "solutions" coming out of Washington or Jerusalem are quite backward in shape, form and attitude.

[MMMMMM]

Well, as I've said, I think the Palestinians should get theior own homeland next to Israel. If Israel were to give up the occupied territories (but not return entirely to the 1967 borders, as Israel needs some of that stragetic land to thwart future pan-Arab attacks or Hizbollah attacks) and if Jordan were to give up some of the partitioned land it stole from the Palestinians, they'd have a homeland. Then the biggest problem would be the fanatical groups pledged to fight Israel eternally. These extremist groups would have to be dismantled--by force if necessary.

Regarding backwards cultures in general: I'm all for treating them with great kindness and understanding, support and openness...until they begin irrationally and fanatically attacking us. Then I believe we have to wipe out the enclaves or organizations such as al Qaeda which do, as a means of self-defense.

Something should also be done about the Saudi teaching and export of Wahabbism, which is by far one of the most backwards, virulent and aggressive ideological sects of Islam. Just what should be done I'm not entirely sure, but Wahabbism is a chief cause of the emergence of fanatical jihadism against the West.

How about we just outlaw stupidity?

[nicky g]

"What makes you the expert on the rationale for the hatred of the Palestinians toward Israel?"

None of us are experts on most of the things discussed on this board. To make up for our lack of expertise, we make arguments based on reason and logic such as those in my post, none of which you have bothered to address. Here they are again: 1. The Palestinians who live in Israel itself are clearly not anti-Israeli in the way those suffering in the occupied territories are. 2. Arabs and Palestinians were tolerant of the Jews who lived alongside them for centuries, much more tolerant than Europeans for example.

Let me add a couple of responses to what you wrote: It isn't find to hard an Israeli referring to Palestinians as dogs. Both sides are polarised and people on both sides use plenty of racist rhetoric against each other. While some Palestinians have dressed their children up as suicide bombers, all Israelis send theirs to the West Bank to kill innocent civilians and foreign journalists and peace activists. Clearly superior.

I've asked you this before, and you haven't answered: how do square your defence of Israel with the fact that a mass-murdering war criminal is its freely elected leader? Where do you get off calling Palestinians racists when Israelis are happy to be led by a genocidal racist such as Sharon, man whom any other country would have jailed for war crimes? And while we're at it, why are you so eager to seize Palestinian terrorist bombings as evidence of the inate evil and racism of all Palestinians, but happy to defend a state that was set up on the back of a campaign of, er... terrorist bombings?