Outrage over new Israel settlements

[ProgressiveMuslim]

The chief Palestinian negotiator says Israel is sabotaging Middle East negotiations with new plans to build hundreds of homes in the West Bank and occupied east Jerusalem.


"The pursuit of settlements is a slap to the peace process and to efforts to make it credible," Ahmed Qureia said on Tuesday.

Israel this week unveiled new housing plans in occupied east Jerusalem and in the West Bank settlement of Givat Zeev, moves that drew a chorus of international criticism and warnings they could hamper peace talks.

It also came as Egyptian mediation efforts led to a tentative ceasefire in Gaza.

"Israel is sending a very bad message that shows its contempt for the negotiations." Qureia told reporters after meeting Tony Blair, the international Middle East envoy, in Ramallah.

Instead of focusing on the peace process, focuses on settlement expansion," he said.

Al Jazeera obtained a copy of a letter in which Qureia expressed his government's anger and frustration to his Israeli counterpart Tzipi Livni.


"All such illegal activity continues to undermine our efforts to reach our common goal of a comprehensive peace treaty before the end of 2008," he said.


He urged Livni to halt the construction, saying: "All Israeli settlement activity anywhere inside occupied territory … is completely rejected by us and the entire international community, and must be immediately stopped."


Deaf ears

The Jewish state has, nevertheless, refused to halt construction in occupied east Jerusalem and major West Bank settlement blocs.

Regev, the Israeli spokesman, said Givat Zeev, a settlement near Jerusalem, is in the settlement "blocs" that Israel intends to keep, but also said Olmert could not have halted the construction even if he wanted to since the project was first approved in 1999.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/50192ED2-87AA-4A79-BA5B-FFE5F5E79073.htm

[LeftishBrit]

1. Building new settlements is certainly a very bad idea.

There should be a complete freeze on that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. "a bad idea." Gee, that could come out of the GWB lexicon... nex to "unhelpful." nt

[LeftishBrit]

3. It could also come out of the British lexicon

We tend to use mild words (yes, 'unhelpful' is often one of them) when we strongly disapprove of something.

Doesn't mean that we resemble or support GWB in ANY way!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. LB,it's a helluva lot more than a "bad idea." It's the cornerstone of Israel's

violent, human-right-trashing- military occupation.

It's the core issue of the conflict.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Whatever one calls it, they shouldn't do it!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Do you get that THIS action is the #1 impediment to peace? nt

[LeftishBrit]

8. It is ONE big impediment to peace.

There are others - such as people who are not only opposed to the occupation, but to Israel's very existence.

Israel needs to stop building the settlements as of yesterday, and plan for an end to the Occupation.

But the Palestinian groups need to accept that Israel isn't just going to disappear, and to end their terrorist attacks against civilians.

There needs to be a commitment to peace on both sides.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. LB, can I ask you a serious question?

Do you honestly think that Palestinians are engaging in those attacks for the joy of it?

Honestly?

Settlement activity is the constant: from June 13, 1967 until 3 mintues ago. It occurred immediately after the land was seized, and throughout the decades. It occured continously, even during the Oslo accords when israel was supposed gearing up to RETURN the land. It occurs when bush is trying to re-start failed talks. It occurs when Palestinians are passive. It occurs when they resist. It occurs no matter what.

It is THE impediment.

[LeftishBrit]

10. The answer to your question is of course No.

People rarely attack other groups 'for the joy of it'. They do so for three often related reasons: (1) they hate the other group; (2) they think it wil give them an advantage; (3) they think it is necessary for self-defense.

None of this means that the attacks are justified. American and Britain didn't attack Iraq 'for the joy of it', but nonetheless the attack was utterly wrong.

The settlement activity is wrong, and Israelis should have put a halt to it long ago. But it isn't the only reason for conflict in the Middle East - or why were there attacks on Israel BEFORE 1967?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. FCOL.

Do you really see Egypt or Jordan attacking Israel at this point in time?

Is Israel's primary conflict not with Palestinians, and others whose land they occupy?

[LeftishBrit]

12. No - because Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel

It took a lot of compromise and negotiation on all sides.

I hope the same can be done here.

And it goes without saying that ONE necessary step will be to end all settlement building, and ultimately the Occupation. But Hamas, or whoever replace it in the Palestinian leadership, will also need to recognize Israel.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. Let me ask you this question,

and I hope you'll answer honestly.

Do you think that the state of Israel has any intention of stopping its settlement activity any time soon?

[LeftishBrit]

42. I think 'the state of Israel' is very divided on the matter

Some want further settlement activity; some want a freeze on settlement activity, but not an end to the occupation; some want a complete end to the occupation.

I think that those who want further settlement activity are a minority, but enjoy undue political power, because the strict proportional-representation system leads to small parties having excessive influence.

I think that a proper peace agreement would inevitably involve Israel having to stop such activities. And I think most Israelis would support this, if they thought it would lead to real peace.

Now a question for you: Do you honestly think that Hamas would end the terrorist activities even if Israel stopped the settlement expansion, ended the occupation, but continued to exist within secure borders? (Which is what I would support.) I fully believe that many Palestinians would support this; I'm just less convinced that Hamas would, given its own stated policies.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I think when PM asked about the state, she meant the govt and not the population...

And I don't think the state is interested at all in stopping the settlement activity...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. It dawned on me last night after shutting off the computer last night:

We really got to the core of disagreement.

I believe yOu'd asked if the conflict were really about settlement, than why did Pals "attack" before 1967.

I believe others in this sub-thread mention the conflict being about JEWS. My response to that is, if the conflict is about "Jews" why weren't there attacks before the Zionist influxes? Why did Arab Muslims & Christians live in relative peace with Jewish neighbors?

It's about LAND. The land in question now is clearly the land in the WB and Gaza.

You ask me if I believe Hamas will stop the attacks. I do believe so. I don't view Hamas a mindless Jew-haters. They are a national liberation group and I do believe they accept that there will be 2 states here. I think they are trying hard right now to bring about negotiations toward ceasefire and want to be involved in negotiations toward a just settlement.

FOR ALL THOSE WHO ARE COPYING THIS POST FOR FUTURE USE (you know who you are): I am not a Hamas "supporter." I would not vote for Hamas. I don't send them noney. But I think their analysis of the situation: ie that the gov't of Israel has no intereste in peace, is SPOT ON.

Conversely, Israel's continued land grabbing, even during a so-called "proper" peace process, leads me to believe that for whatever host of reasons, their gov't refuses to accede to the will of the majority on this issue. Land-grab has been the cornerstone of Zionism since the late 1800's. It shows no signs of stopping.

Hamas believes that Israel will only change if it is forced to. I share that belief. But I disagree with their tactics: I think targetting civilians HURTS the Palestinian cause, and loses them the moral highground. I think Israel should be forced to the negotiating table by the use of international boycott, divestment and sanctions.

So, the question is for you: Can you see a future where the gov't of Israel stops grabbing land? (A future before it's all grabbed, that is.) Where it returns taken land -- land such that there could be a contiguous, viable state for palestine?

So far, the majority in Israel that do NOT favor settlements have been ignored. How do you see this ever changing? The "moderate" line in Israel seems to be, well if the Palestinians are "good," the moderate center can bring about change. But how??? This thinking presumes that settlement activity is tied to Palestinian behavior, and I don't think that's the case at all. It's tied to Zionist mission.

You could read thru all this and ask: well, I think Hamas will go after Israel proper. I don't trust what they may do. That's fair enough, but I'd counter with: hell, I don't trust the gov't of Israel, not because of what they MIGHT do 50 years from now, but for what they ARE doing TODAY!!!

We've all got to take that leap of trust.

[LeftishBrit]

58. 'Land' vs 'hatred' - isn't it usually both?

Most wars and conflicts involve land, or related resources, directly or indirectly. Most also lead to, and sometimes begin with, hatred between the groups involved. Conflict over resources and inter-group hatred are not mutually exclusive; they usually feed off each other.

Moreover, even if it's 'just' land: isn't it pretty clear that Hamas thinks that Arabs are entitled to ALL the land and that Israel should not exist at all, even within the pre-1967 boundaries? This is what Hamas leaders have said themselves. It may be that they will compromise, if the Israelis stop the settlements and pursue peace negotiations more seriously - but they aren't showing any obvious signs of this.


'if the conflict is about "Jews" why weren't there attacks before the Zionist influxes? Why did Arab Muslims & Christians live in relative peace with Jewish neighbors?'

Well, they haven't always done so. And in any case, it's not difficult to live in peace with your (name nationality/ethnicity/religion) neighbours when there are only very few such neighbours. It's when there are a larger number, and when they are indeed competing at any level for land and resources, that conflict begins.

'So far, the majority in Israel that do NOT favor settlements have been ignored. How do you see this ever changing?'

'The "moderate" line in Israel seems to be, well if the Palestinians are "good," the moderate center can bring about change. But how??? This thinking presumes that settlement activity is tied to Palestinian behavior, and I don't think that's the case at all. It's tied to Zionist mission.'

It's not a matter of being 'good'; it's a matter of people feeling threatened. A common Israeli perception is that Israeli withdrawals from territory will *not* result in a cessation of violence, and *will* make it harder to protect Israelis from violence. This perception may or may not be correct; but Hamas' own words and actions are certainly encouraging the perception that it *is* correct! And as long as Israelis have this perception, then they are likely to want to protect themselves. I wouldn't call it a 'mission'; just the common wish of any country to protect itself and its own. This is one of the main things that stands in the way of most Israelis being prepared to consider unilateral withdrawal from the occupied territories - even those who oppose the occupation on principle, fear that the violence will continue, and they will be more exposed. (Active settlement expansion is a different matter, and probably due to the excessive political power of the fringe-nuts.)

How to bring about change? - well, on the Israeli side, change the electoral system so that the fringe-nuts have less power. A completely first-past-the-post system has its dangers, but so does a pure PR system. And completely freeze settlement activity!!! On the Palestinian side, try some different tactics from the violent resistance, which is not only murderous, but is clearly not WORKING. On another thread, you posted an article by Amira Hass, which suggested some much more constructive tactics - why not try some of these?

'well, I think Hamas will go after Israel proper. I don't trust what they may do. That's fair enough, but I'd counter with: hell, I don't trust the gov't of Israel, not because of what they MIGHT do 50 years from now, but for what they ARE doing TODAY!!!'

But the Israelis would also say that they 'don't trust Hamas, not because of what they MIGHT do 50 years from now, but for what they ARE doing TODAY!!!' That, on the Israeli side, is the whole point!!!!

'We've all got to take that leap of trust'

I agree - but it's not going to happen without some serious negotiations. (And yes, I think Hamas should be invited to the table; but I doubt that they will accept, or would be ready to negotiate about even the basics.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

62. Apart from rhetoric, why do you doubt they would accept?

Do you think they want to be in charge of an isolated bantustan forever?

unlike Fatah, Hamas is about national liberation, not running a corrupt bureacracy.

[LeftishBrit]

66. Because their own Charter, and their own words and actions, suggest that they are not only against

the Occupation, but against the existence of Israel; and Israel isn't going to negotiate its existence away. So I doubt that Hamas are going to be interested.

Of course, you may be right and I may be wrong. After all, Begin and Sadat didn't look like likely negotiating partners until they did negotiate; and pretty much the same goes for the representatives of the IRA and the extreme Protestant groups in Northern Ireland. Miracles can happen. But it would be a miracle.

[azurnoir]

59. Beautiful post

I too have suggested that a"leap of faith" might be needed and was met with what boiled down to "why should we?". Beyond that, a willingness to let go of the past is needed, it never ceases to amaze when people on this board are willing to go back 60, 70, 80 years or more to justify actions taking place today.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

63. I think th eproblem is that while the status quo = death for Palestinians,

it's pretty do-able for israelis who don't live in Sderot.

Why should they bother?

[azurnoir]

64. I have to wonder though

if it average Israeli's or their government, polls I have read about say that most Israeli's are willing to at least negotiate. I suspect the people on this board who are pro-Israeli" tend to be more rightwing than many Israeli's.

[Vegasaurus]

14. Egypt and Jordan have a fragile peace at best

They still have some of the most virulent anti-Israel and anti-semitic cartoons around though, and they still love the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

[Vegasaurus]

13. And before June 13, 1967

there was no occupation, and no settlements.

And there was still nonstop violence from Palestinians and other Arabs.

This is NOT ABOUT THE OCCUPATION! IT IS ABOUT JEWS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

[Shaktimaan]

15. OK, I'll bite.

When have the Palestinians been passive?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. I would characterize the behavior of people in the WB and Gaza as

relatively passive from 1967-1988.

[Shaktimaan]

69. I respectfully disagree

This was the time of black september and the massacre in munich and airplane hijackings. I'll link to a chronology of terror attacks with Israel that covers the time period you mentioned, I'd hardly call it "passive." There was no absence of terrorism during that time, in fact I'm pretty surprised that you'd classify it like that. I mean, I'm sure this link isn't going to tell you anything you don't already know. Maybe there was less terrorism then than there was during the Oslo years, but having less terrorism isn't exactly the same thing as being passive.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisrael-2.html

edit: here's a bar graph, (halfway down the page) that shows casualties over that time period. It seems that there were less attacks in the years just before 1967 than during the time you mentioned. I don't see those decades as looking particularly peaceful.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html

[Crunchy Frog]

33. If Palestinian people were'nt being disposessed of their land and homes on a continuous basis

there might well be far fewer of them who were opposed to Israel's existence. In any case, it's not possible to control people's thoughts and feelings but it is possible to control actions such as continuing to build illegal settlements. (And yes, Palestinians should stop their attacks against civilians too.)

[Vegasaurus]

6. No, no no

It isn't the core of the conflict.


Jews in the middle east is the core of the conflict.

If occupation or settlements were the issue, there wouldn't have been all these wars started against Israel BEFORE THERE WAS AN OCCUPATION.

The issue is NOT occupation. The issue is Jews in the middle east, and Hamas is clear that their goal is to rid the area of every one.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Hifalutin, can I ask you a question?

Have you ever *met* a Palestinian?

[hifalutin]

20. No,

I have not had that pleasure.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. I didn't think you ever met a Palestinian person in person.

If you had, you wouldn't spout that kind of nonsense.

[hifalutin]

29. I did not realize

we were discussing Palestinians.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Uh, this is the Israel/Palestine forum.

Israelis and Palestinians are discussed here.

[hifalutin]

35. Sorry,

my mistake, I thought we were discussing Hamas.
Are you telling me there is no difference?

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No-one had mentioned Hamas in this sub-thread...

So why did you think everyone was talking about Hamas?

[breakaleg]

21. It certainly suits Israel to claim such a thing. That way they are let off the hook for all of the

atrocities they have done to Palestinians. Although I don't think most educated people will fall for it.

[hifalutin]

22. I am considered

to be an educated person and I don't fall for propaganda from either side.
One has to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. I must remember this Not Falling For Propaganda trick!

While some propaganda is more subtle than other propaganda, I still can't decide if people who claim that Israel should just ignore international law because they say the UN is AnTi-IsRaEl!!!! or who dumb down the very complex root causes of the I/P conflict to 'IT'S ALL ABOUT THE JEWS!!!!' are propagandists with their L-plates on, or just people who don't like to think too deeply...

[Vegasaurus]

25. Oh, I think you are wrong on that one

The world is sick and tired of terrorism.

People can read the Hamas charter, and they know what it means. This rhetoric doesn't "suit" the Israelis, and in fact, I wonder if you would like to live with most of the countries in the middle east (even the ones that are supposedly "AT PEACE') wanting to annhilate you (and they say it all the time, so educated people do believe these things).

[breakaleg]

26. Has Hamas been in charge of the Palestinian Authority for the last 40 years?

Are they even in charge of it now? Then how do you explain the actions of Israel during that time. Hamas is a recent player in this thing and to pin all the blame on them when Israel has be slowly eating away at the territory set aside for a state is ridiculous.

[Vegasaurus]

27. HAmas is just the worst in a very long line of terrorists with the same goal

The problem is they are cunning and more dangerous. But the goals have always been the same; just the names were different.

[breakaleg]

30. Again, conveniently, Israel has a scapegoat on which to lay the blame for the current

situation and deflect attention away from the fact that for the previous 38 years when Hamas was not in power, they did nothing different.

I wonder why you are here, in this forum, given your views. You seem to have your opinions carved in stone. It seems your only purpose is to stifle any conversation or differing opinions from yours. And doesn't that contradict the idea behind a "discussion" forum?

[Vegasaurus]

31. And you consider yourself to be here having conversation and discussion>?

You are one of the most one sided posters here!

Contrary to the "hate Israel crowd", who see the Palestinians as hapless victims, completely unculpable, I acknowledge the hand Israel has played in this conflict. I am against the settlements, for example.

I don't see much even handedness on either side, frankly, so I don't know why the hell you are singling me out.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Wouldn't you have to know what conversation and discussion is in the first place?

I for one don't consider anyone who posts here constantly accusing other DUers en-masse of having stances they don't have, of having a trail of deleted posts which have made negative comments about the entire population of Gaza, or who insists that Palestinians aren't victims (again, no-one is going to convince me that people, no matter if they're Palestinian or Israeli who've lost family or friends in the conflict aren't victims) to be having *conversation and discussion* or to be able to discern even-handedness....

[Dick Dastardly]

38. That is wrong

There were no roadblocks, fences ect ect. The Palestinians were free to work in Israel. It was not the same except for the fact the Palestinians were terror attacking Israel back then too like Achille Lauro, Munich,Entebbe
and

Avivim school bus massacre-The attack caused the death of 9 children (aged between six and nine) and 3 adults, and left 19 others crippled for life.

The Avivim school bus massacre was a terrorist attack that took place in Israel on May 8, 1970 near Moshav Avivim on the border with Lebanon. Palestinian gunmen from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) attacked the town's school bus, killing twelve people, mostly children.

Early in the morning, the bus departed from Avivim heading with its passengers to two local schools, as it did every morning following the same route. This route had secretly been scouted by the Palestinians in the weeks leading up to the assault, and a careful ambush was prepared. As the bus passed the ambush point, just ten minutes after leaving Avivim, it was attacked by heavy automatic gunfire from both sides of the road. The driver was amongst those hit in the initial barrage, as were the two other adults on board, all three being killed as the bus crashed into an embankment, the gunmen still firing into the vehicle.

By the time rescue parties from Avivim arrived, the assailants were gone, and it also took some time for ambulances and military vehicles to arrive, allowing the attackers time to escape, unfortunately failing to arrive in time to save some of the wounded children who died at the scene. In all nine children (aged between six and nine) and three adults, all civilians, were killed in the attack. Nineteen other children were seriously wounded by the gunfire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre


Ma'alot massacre-twenty-two dead schoolchildren and more that fifty wounded
The Ma'alot massacre was an attack, carried out in Ma'alot, Israel by members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, that occurred on May 15, 1974, the 26th anniversary of Israeli independence. In this massacre members of the DFLP murdered 22 religious high school students from the city of Safed.

Ma'alot, located on a plateau in the hills of the Western Galilee region of Israel, some six miles south of the Lebanese border,<1> was a development town founded in 1957 by Jewish refugees, mainly from Morocco and other Arab countries such as Tunisia. The terrorist attack was perpetrated by three members of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP), al-Jabha al-Dimuqratiyya li-Tahrir Filastin. The commander of the group was Achmed Lini. The names of the other two were Achmed Haribi and Ziad Rachim.

The attack
cont.

Read all the revolting details including the trail of murders on the way to the school. There were a total of 26 victims(21 children), including several people murdered by the terrorists on their way to the school the night before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%27alot_massacre

Some of the TERRORIST ATTACKS 1970S

Lod Airport Massacre, 1972
On May 30, 1972, a three-man hit squad from the Japanese Red Army attacked civilians at the Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel in an operation planned and supported by the General Command of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP-GC). Twenty-six people were killed in the massacre and 78 were injured.


Kiryat Shmona (or Quirat Shemona), 1974
On April 11, 1974, a team of three members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command penetrated the Israeli border town of Kiryat Shmona from Lebanon. Although they had apparently been instructed to take hostages, they instead entered an apartment building and killed all eighteen residents they found there, including nine children. The terrorists then barricaded themselves in one of the apartments and were eventually killed in an exchange of fire with Israeli forces.


Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel, 1975
On March 5, 1975 eight PLO terrorists arrived in Tel Aviv, coming by sea in a rubber dinghy, and landing without being spotted. They entered the Savoy Hotel and took dozens of hostages including a Dutch boy, 15, two Swiss, a Somali, and several Israelis. The terrorists barricaded themselves in the top floor of the hotel with the hostages.

Azmi Zrayir, a hero of the PLO, and Abu Jihad, one of the founders of "Black September", have been linked to this attack as organizers.

The terrorists demanded the release of their followers from Israeli jails. Israel Defense Forces started a rescue mission in the afternoon. Three IDF soldiers were killed and eight hostages wounded during the operation. At the end of the battle, the terrorists retreated to a room and blew themselves up when the commandos broke in. Seven terrorists were killed and one captured. Eight hostages were murdered and 11 wounded by the terrorists.

Bus Hijacking on Coastal Road, 1978
On March 11, 1978 eleven terrorists, again coming from Lebanon with Zoadic rubber commando dinghies, landed at the beach of Kibbutz Ma’agan Michael. They killed an American photographer and a taxi driver and hijacked a bus, whose passengers, including many children, were on a day-trip to the north. The hijackers forced the driver to return to Tel Aviv. Driving on the coastal highway, the terrorists fired on passing cars from the bus.

When the bus approached a blockade set up by the police at an entrance to Tel Aviv, a shootout took place. The terrorists left the bus and fired missiles. The bus burst into flames and most of the passengers were either burned alive or killed by terrorist gunfire.

The massacre left 35 innocent people dead and 100 injured. The terrorists were identified as belonging to Fatah; nine were killed and two captured.

much more
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_terrorism_1970s.php







How about even before the occupation there was bloodthirsty attacks like

Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Ma'ale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them.

Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

Between 1949 and 1956, 400 Israelis were killed and 900 wounded by fedayeen attacks. <5> <6>; according to the Anti-Defamation League "n 1955 alone, 260 Israeli citizens were killed or wounded by fedayeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_political_violence

Here is a partial list
terrorist attacks against Israel before 1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks_against_Israel_before_1967



Last but not least, how about the human vermin Samir Kuntar in 1979

Samir Kuntar (Arabic: سمير القنطار‎, also transcribed Sameer, Kantar, Quntar, Qantar) (born July 20, 1962 in Aabey, Lebanon), is a Lebanese Druze who belonged to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), a pro-Palestinian organization led by Abu Abbas. The PLF is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.<1><2><3> He participated in an attack on Israeli family in 1979 and has been held since in Israeli jails under a four-times-life sentence since his admitted conviction in 1979 on charges of murder and terrorism, for the killing of four Israelis, a twenty eight year-old man, his four year-old daughter, and two Israeli policemen.

Details of the Attack
According to Smadar Haran, her last memories of Danny and Einat, that day, were when they were being led away at gun point by Kuntar. She could hear from her closet space Danny telling Einat, "Don't be scared, my baby, it will be alright" and Einat replied to him in her little voice, "Dad, where is Mommy? I want Mommy." Smadar's last memory of her 2-year-old daughter, Yael, was when her little daughter was taken to the apartment hiding space. Right before Yael had her mouth covered by her mother, she asked her mother "Where is my little pacifier." There was no time to search for the pacifier. Minutes later Smadar covered Yael's mouth to keep her from revealing the hiding space. Smadar soon felt her daughter's tiny tongue licks and lip sucking on the palm of her hand. She didn't know what to make of it at first but hours later was told by doctors and paramedics that the reason Yael was licking her palm while she covered her mouth was because she was gasping for air.


According to a 1979 Israeli Maariv (Hebrew: מַעֲרִיב‎) Newpaper which described details of this attack: After drowning Danny in the sea in front of little Einat (all this taking place as Ahmed Al-Brass, Mhanna Salim Al-Muayed, and Abdel Majeed Asslan stood and served as look outs and backup cover for Kuntar), Kuntar, then turned his attention towards the frightened little 4-year old. He took his rifle and then swung it across the little toddler's head, knocking her to the ground. As little Einat was knocked to the ground, she was screaming and crying hysterically "mommy daddy help me," while thrashing her little legs around in the sand. But unfortunately Einat was alone, and no one was there to save her. Kuntar then dragged the little toddler a couple of feet to the closest rock he could find, this was while she was begging him not to hurt her. Kuntar, then laid her head down on a rock, with the intention of crushing it with the butt of his rifle. Einat, instinctively covered her head with her little arms, Kuntar struggled with the little toddler until he finally managed to clear her arms out of the way so that he could aim for her head. Once her arms were out of the way, Kuntar proceeded on beating her on the head over and over with the butt of his rifle, and repeatedly stomping on her little body as hard as he could as well, until blood rushed out of her ears and mouth, and her little cries faded away as she was knocked into unconsciousness. Then, to ensure she was dead, Kuntar continued on beating her over the head, as hard as he could, several more times until her skull was crushed and she was dead.<4>

Support for Samir Kuntar
Although Kuntar has admitted his complicity many times and expressed pride about the killings, he has many supporters in Lebanon who maintain that he is innocent. Other supporters, alternately, claim that the Harans (including the four year-old girl) were legitimate targets and consider Kuntar to be a political prisoner.




more of this revolting story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar



So you are partially right about nothing different but it is the Palestinians not Israel


btw I wouldnt be criticizing someone about views carved in stone. That is a pot to kettle moment

[breakaleg]

39. Is there a state called Palestine? After 38 years of occupation without Hamas, there isn't.

[Dick Dastardly]

40. That is typical

What does this have to do with the comment that Hamas being another in a long line of terror groups and then you stating that prior to Hamas Israel did nothing different and is scapegoating. I showed you Israel did not do what they did today(roadblocks, Fencing ect ) even though there was the same murderous terror targeting Israel even in pre-occupation days when Jordan and Egypt were in control. I might also mention they signed a peace with Egypt only in 78 and then with Jordan only in 94. They are still in a technical state of war with Syria and other Arab countries. Your not living in reality if you think any country is going to take chances with their security with someone(Palestinians) next to them who are constantly attacking them as well as being in a state of war with all the countries surrounding them.

Why are you deflecting to something else and ignoring the facts posted.

Should Israel just ignore the state of war and vomice attacks like Samir Kuntar's as you do?

I think the only scapegoating is the one being done to Israel to demonise her by ignoring the facts and making new ones up as you go. As I said you are partially right as nothing has changed because the Palestinians are still attacking as they did even before any occupation

[breakaleg]

53. I object to the notion that the walls of their jail were a little bigger back then and that's ok.

You and others here seem to think that conditions weren't always so bad under occupation. I'm trying to point out that living under occupation, no matter how great the occupiers think it was, is not freedom.

Right now, Hamas is the focus. Back when there was no Hamas, they still were living under occupation. That's a fact.

[Vegasaurus]

56. (except 41-60 years ago it wasn't Israeli occupation

but Jordanian and Egyptian, but whose counting anyway)

[breakaleg]

57. We are talking about the Israeli occupation, can you stay on point?

Seriously, now you are saying that Palestinians don't have a state for the last 2 years because of Hamas, ignore the previous 38 and skip all the way back to 41+ years and blame someone else. Are you so focussed on letting Israel off the hook you are prepared to ignore 38 years? What is the point of this?

[shaayecanaan]

70. Correction

Jordan annexed the West Bank. Egypt merely administered the Gaza Strip.

[Dick Dastardly]

67. Again you deflect from the discussion and ignore inconvienient facts

You said nothing was different pre Hamas, I showed that was false. Now you move the goal and state whether there was more freedom or not its still occupation. You ignore the fact that the reason for the occupation was the wars to destroy Israel. You ignore the depraved terror attacks against Israel since even before the occupation. You ignore the calls to destroy Israel. You ignore the fact that Israel is surrounded and outnumbered 100 to 1 in population by its enemies, is a small hard to defend country and cant afford to lose 1 time or they are history. You act like the occupation takes place in a vaccum and Israel just woke up one morning and decided to occupy the WB and Gaza for no reason. I don't scratch my head unless it itches and I don't dance unless I hear some music. Thats how I look at the IP conflict, in a fact based reality not in an imaginary vacuum.

It seems you are saying Israel should ignore the terror, the wars, surrounded by enemies, the calls for its destruction, its precarious defensive position as wells as other various factors and should just have pulled back in 67 and let themselves be more vulnerable again. It seems you think terror and war should be ignored and rewarded. No country in their right mind would do what you want Israel to do.

[oberliner]

41. You mean after 58 years of occupation without Hamas

Don't forget the 20 year occupation by Egypt and Jordan. No Palestinian state was created during their occupation either.

[breakaleg]

55. I thought we were talking about Israel and Hamas. At least I was. nt

[azurnoir]

37. People can also read the Fatah or PA charter

which also cals for the destruction of Israel, so why then is Israel/US willing to deal with them and not Hamas? Although the US State dept claims a redrafted charter exists so it must, right?:sarcasm:

Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel in 1993 and exchanged mutual renunciations of terrorism with Israel and a mutual recognition between the PLO and Israel, and was allowed to return to the Palestinian territories from exile in Tunisia. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Charter and assigned its legal committee the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter consistent with the Arafat letters in order to present it for approval.<17> A redrafted charter that does not call for the destruction of Israel has yet to be presented or approved and the official PNA website displays the original, unamended text of the PNC Charter. According to the US Department of State, "The Palestinian National Charter... amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O. and the Government of Israel 9–10 September 1993."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Your ignorance is beyond comprehension.

I assure you, having lived in a refugee camp in Gaza, the issue is not religion.

It's being treated like a subhuman.

Having never spent even one second in those kinds of conditions, you don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about.

[Vegasaurus]

28. The Israelis didnt; push the Palestinians into squalid camps

where they have lived for 60 years. Their own bad leadership has had plenty to do with their bad lot in life. They could have moved on and made a better life for themselves, like refugees have everywhere.

And remember, this is NOT about the occupation. It is about Jews in the Middle East, which is why there have been near constant wars and terrorism for the past hundred years. It is about religion (or ethnicity, or something).

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. It's about LAND.

If it weren't about LAND, how did Palestinian Muslism and Christians live pretty companionably with Jewish neighbors for centuries.

Don't bother answering me. The only reason I took you off ignore was to read the post that hifalutin responded to. Besides, I know that for some sick reason, you seem to take great comfort in the notion that Jews are hated by Palestinians because they are anti-semites.

Whatever floats your boat.

[azurnoir]

52. Just like refugees everywhere?

"Their own bad leadership has had plenty to do with their bad lot in life. They could have moved on and made a better life for themselves, like refugees have everywhere".

There are still 33 years after the end of the Vietnam war thousands of Hmong in refugee camps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hmong_people

Does this mean their leaders are at fault?

There are still 50 years later thousands of Tibetan refugees living in camps in Nepal and India

http://www.himalayan-foundation.org/live/home/home/

Bad leadership?

you also forgot that thousands of Palestinians have left the Mideast and emigrated elsewhere

[hifalutin]

36. I don't wish to pry

but genuinely concerned, if you 'escaped' from a refugee camp, cannot others do the same?
Is it because of 'where would they go?'

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. If what your saying is true - then is it not the natural implication that peace is impossible?

If it is true that Arab people are simply irrational beings driven by primitive irrational motives and an insatiable hatred of Jewish people then would it not naturally follow that any negotiated settlement whether two-states or one-state or whatever - really doesn't matter - peace is impossible with anyone so lacking in the ability to reason or experience any sense of a common humanity like normal people?

How is this really any different than the exact converse when the avowed anti-semite would proclaim that peace is impossible because "Jewish people are driven by avarice, treachery and deceit"?

Is it possible, just possible that both Jews and Arabs might actually share a common humanity?

Is it possible, just possible that both Jews and Arabs - when all is done and said share many of the same basic concerns and whatever mutual ethnic loathing and past grudges do genuinely exist - they are not really the core of the issue?

Although I agree that most Arab peoples will never be convinced that Zionism was a good idea just as most Zionist will never be convinced that Zionism was a bad idea - it would be possible and in the future -perhaps even probable - that each might actually gain some insight into where the other is actually coming from.

It certainly would be a good thing if more Palestinians and other Arab peoples realized that it was not ill intent, but the fierce and violent anti-Semitism of Europe that drove the Zionist colonization of Palestine. I would guess that when this conflict is over some day, most will realize it. It usually does take time to heal. And healing doesn't always occur when a conflict is still raging.

I would guess that in the future most Zionist will realize what most early Zionist leaders realized a long time ago that the Palestinians were simply doing at least in essence what anyone else in their situation of having a land that they had every natural right to consider their homeland and themselves the legitimate sovereigns that was under direct threat from a well organized colonization project -would do. From David Ben Gurion to Ze'ev Jabotinsky to Moshe Dyan they all understood this very well.

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" -- David Ben-Gurion -- as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.


Someone once said, "We can either live together or we will die together. I for one prefer that we live together."

[msmcghee]

51. I really like it when you write about your ideas.

This is so much better than a list of links to a bunch of ideologues who agree with you. Here you included a quote in the body to support your ideas. That's great. Let me digest this for a while but I just wanted to complement you on this since I usually criticize you so much. I love reading people's well thought-out, well-stated ideas on this conflict, even when I strongly disagree with the underlying beliefs.

[Vegasaurus]

54. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I agree that living together is far preferable to dying together. It is my hope that others, on both sides, will one day share your vision.

[msmcghee]

60. I can understand your view as you stated it here.

But I have a problem with it. I take exception to your suggestion that " . . the Palestinians were simply doing at least in essence what anyone else in their situation of having a land that they had every natural right to consider their homeland and themselves the legitimate sovereigns . . ". I think that idea lies at the core of two opposing views on this conflict.

Did they really have that right? The Arab inhabitants at the time mostly considered themselves to be Syrians although I think they really just thought of themselves as Arabs / Muslims living in greater "Arabia al Islam" because Syria was a rather recent invention of the French. They had just been relieved of several centuries of Turk domination and were being administered by Brits with guns and living alongside various Druze, Jews, Bedouins, Christians, etc. Some from each of these groups were recent immigrants while others had ancestors going back centuries.

No matter what historic narrative appeals to you or me - that still leaves one important element hanging that seems to me to be an overriding consideration. The members of all those ethnic groups including the Arabs and the Jews were engaging in volitional transactions (they were buying and selling, not stealing) in a land that was not a state. They did this both by emigrating there and engaging in work or business activities after they got there. There was no "conquest" of any group by the other.

It seems to me that claims by one ethnic group that they had a right to deny to any other ethnic groups there, equal status in terms of the sovereignty of (those) eventual state(s) - is a racist claim. What other basis could there be for such a claim? If you say that Arabs were in the majority for more of the recent history and that gives them that right of sovereignty based on their ethnicity - that, to me, is simply a claim that some ethnicities have inherently greater rights than immigrants of different ethnicity. How is that not racist?

As far as I know international law does not recognize ethnicity as a valid basis for granting human and civil rights preferentially to the inhabitants of a state or stateless territory. Neither is the length of time your parents lived there a consideration. If it does can you provide an example?

It seems to me that you had people moving to a land that was ripe for development given adequate capital and human labor investment. Those Arabs and Jews and others who immigrated did so because they wanted to benefit from that opportunity. The same is true for the Arabs and Jews and others who were already there and stayed. It should make no difference if they were Arab or Jew - they were people seeking to better their lives. I can't see how giving one group preferential access to those benefits or political control of the other groups in all that territory based on their ethnicity is not racist - and therefore an immoral and invalid premise. That's the basis for my problem with the view that the land was "Arab" land and attempts to "Judaise" it were justifiably opposed with violence. I can't see how that is not a racist and therefore an invalid claim.

It seems to me that given the animosity against the Jews by the Arabs that the UN Partition Plan made imminent sense as a way to grant the benefits of statehood to the territory in a way that the two major ethnic groups there would be able to gain self-determination within a democratic context - thereby assuring minority rights and the greatest measure of self-determination within the two areas. No-one's privately owned land was expropriated and no-one was to be forced to move from one area to another. I can't see how Arab objections to this were not simply a racist reaction against the possibility that Jews would have a state in a land that was historically Muslim dominated - as long as you don't go back too far.

I'm not just saying you are wrong. I'm trying to understand your position and explain why I have a problem with it. Can you see my problem and tell me if I'm missing something?

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. well, I would agree in that nationalism was a relatively new concept in most of the world

and certainly in the Middle East there would have been mixed and overlapping terminology by which people described themselves. But I think that is essentially irrelevant to the bigger picture. Americans in 1750 would have described themselves by different terms and there definitely would not have been a unified concept of an American people until after the American republic was well established. I doubt that most Zionist immigrants to Palestine called themselves Israelis until after the Israeli state was established. National identify has always been a fluid thing and generally speaking does not become a fixed concept until either after catastrophic events or the formal establishment of a state. Even more so in a region in which the whole principle of nationalism was a new idea.

I think there were clear differences in the nature of land purchases by the Zionist in Palestine that clearly separate this from just engaging in mutually agreeable transactions. First of all most of the purchases of most of the Zionist settlement lands would have been from absentee landowners, many from people within the Ottoman Empire who lived outside of Palestine. The local people who would have been directly effected by these purchases would have had no control over this and no say in these transactions.

Also, a new foreign idea about what land purchase actually meant was introduced into the area. Previously, - when land ownership changed hands - the relationship of the tenants to the land generally remained basically unchanged. They continued living and perhaps paying modest rent in terms of produce, labor or perhaps even money as they always had before. However the Zionist purchases frequently came with the expectation that the tenants would have to vacate to make room for colonies of new immigrants. This would have been a foreign concept

In the earliest days of Zionist settlements (pre Herzl) there really wasn't that much opposition to the purchases. When Jewish migration first began in a significant way around the 1880's there was not a general impression among the Palestinian-Arab population that these relatively small Jewish communities had any intention of creating a Zionist state. Probably because most of the early migrants from all that I gather did NOT have that agenda. When Mr. Herzl's book, "The Jewish State" was first released in 1896- besides the Agenda of an explicitly Zionist state starting to gain increased traction among many Jewish people - news of this agenda rapidly spread among the Palestinian-Arab population and throughout the region - both by word of mouth and by the printed word as well.

Imagine if you will what the reaction would be if after a series of major absentee land purchases in Northern California by Hispanics the word rapidly spread that these Hispanics were actively planning to create an independent Spanish nation-state in Northern California. Imagine if this plan was confirmed in writing by the leader of this large scale settlement project. Then imagine if these Hispanics were vastly wealthier and more formally educated and generally looked down on the established local population. What would the visceral reaction of the people be? What if the outside powers started giving its backing and blessing to this project? What if at a the most important conference held in decades of these world powers - if at that conference the most significant leader of this project proclaimed publicly that they intended to make Northern California as Spanish as Spain, as Chaim Weizmann said at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919?

What if along with this that it became quite clear that the place for the local established population who lived in this rapidly colonizing land was in grave doubt? Would they be second class citizens? Would they be expected to move? Would the local long established population think it reasonable to partition Northern California?

Granted this is not the best possible analogy. I'm simply trying to create a contemporary one.

The Palestinian-Arab population had no reason to expect the best of intentions for them simply based on what has generally happened throughout history whenever a European people or any other wealthier and more formally educated and more technologically advanced people start taking over, especially with plans to establish sovereignty which would mean sovereignty over them with a most uncertain future.

And again I must emphasize that the Zionist leadership did definitely understand perfectly well that the local population would resist them fiercely. The Zionist leadership did not interpret this as a xenophobia or racism, but quite the contrary, the natural reaction of any established local people to an outside project that threatened them with usurption or at the very least marginalization. The European Zionist were no more capable of accepting the Palestinian-Arabs as their equals than other colonialist throughout history. Western people (and probably other relatively wealthier, more formally educated and technologically advanced people as well) have this terrible tendency to treat local peoples as inferiors and view their cultures with contempt. Even western expatriates, tourist and military people have a terrible tendency to treat third-world peoples this way - even today. I will say that the Zionist colonizers where in no way unique in this. This is simply how colonizers have always been throughout history.

In the defense of the sources that I use. I try my best not to rely on pro-Palestinian ideologues, but quite the opposite to rely on serious academics who either have a pro-Zionist bias or are simply dry academic researchers. Even if I might agree with the likes of say Norman Finkelstein or Ilan Pappe and diligently read their books - I recognize that they do hold a particular strong point of view. I don't accept personally as established fact ideas from a staunch ideologue (especially the ones I tend to agree with) unless it has been confirmed by more dispassionate sources. For example although I greatly admire Professor Ilan Pappe and consider him a personal hero and a great man - kind of like the Israeli Joe Slovo - since I find some of his terminology too strong and some of his conclusions probably correct, but less than certain. I would be inclined to wait and see what develops among more dispassionate historians regarding some of his more controversial analysis.

That's why referring to someone who is as obviously and deeply committed to Zionism and the Israeli state like Shlomo Ben-Ami carries a lot of weight with me. One could hardly question that the former Israeli Foreign Minister is anything but a stanch Zionist who's natural inclination would be to defend Israel's interest.

Another one of my favorites is Avi Shlaim of Oxford University who is most definitely a Zionist. He was actually born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1945 and immigrated to Israel with his family as a small child of five years in 1950. He makes it quite clear in his books that he strongly believes establishing the Jewish state was a historic necessity and a great accomplishment. However he also acknowledge the grave injustice this project brought upon the Palestinian people.

This is an essay by Professor Shlaim that deals with the subject at hand:

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave toward the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. As early as 1919, at the Paris peace conference, Chaim Weizmann called for a Palestine "as Jewish as England is English." And Chaim Weizmann, the uncle of Israel's current President, was one of the moderates. "

snip:"Zangwill's slogan about "a land without a people for a people without a land" was useful for propaganda purposes, but from the outset the leaders of the Zionist movement realized that their aim of establishing a Jewish state in a territory inhabited by an Arab community could not be achieved without inducing, by one means or another, a large number of Arabs to leave Palestine. In their public utterances the Zionist leaders avoided as far as possible any mention of transfer, but in private discussions they could be brutally frank. "

link: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

[msmcghee]

71. I am disappointed. I was looking forward to your ideas . .

. . addressing the points in my comment that I described as being at the core of our disagreement. I have read through your missive twice now and still can't make much sense of it - looking for a response to my concerns. I went back and read my prior post and it seems quite clear to me. Of course, I wrote it and it may not be clear to you. I will summarize that post here but please re-read the original before responding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=204752&mesg_id=205001

a) There is no natural right not to have your neighborhood change to a different mix of people ethnically, religiously, etc. - as long as the change is not caused by forced displacement or illegal intimidation.

b) Zionist motives, as long as they didn't result in illegal or violent activity, are not relevant. Establishing a Jewish homeland and acting legally through immigrations and development to procure one is not an immoral motive or an immoral act in any case.

c) Many millions of humans had to face neighbors of a different ethnicity and religion in the aftermath of WWII. That is not justification for more killing. Violently attacking and killing immigrants to a territory because of their religion or ethnicity is racism of the worst sort - even if, as an Arab, you didn't want to see the neighborhood change. It establishes a clear moral and legal liability.

d) It is the violence and anti-Jewish riots before 1947/8, the Arab armies' attack on the new Israel during that period and the continuous terrorism against Israeli citizens since that time that places Israel's Arab / Muslim enemies firmly in the category of criminals and murderers and has forced, first, the Zionist immigrants and then the state of Israel to violently defend itself and be in a constant state of war.

e) All the killing and the injured and dead on both sides that has gone on now for at least a century is ultimately the result of Arab / Muslim cultural racism directed against the idea that a nation of Jews could be allowed to live on one small piece of land in the ME that was once dominated by Arabs / Muslims.

Please address this core concern in a way that I can easily understand your points and how they relate to the above if you wish to continue. (Please be concise.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

73. frankly I intentionally avoided the use of the words "morality" or "immorality" for a reason

I don't think struggles for power have a whole lot to do with morality whether it is office politics, children on a playground, or struggles for sovereignty between competing peoples.

As I also stated above I absolutely agree that Arab people should and must grasp that the Zionist project in Palestine was not driven by ill intent and certainly does not reflect a character or cultural flaw in the Jewish people. I have spent a great deal of time spreading that message at every opportunity I have had over the past several years. Enough so that I have been at times from the more rigid and narrow minded been accused of being a closet Zionist.

I have only one broad agenda beyond the I/P conflict itself when it comes to Middle Eastern politics and that is to do everything I can to reduce tensions in the region which could explode into a nightmare and catastrophe beyond human conception. I have even in recent years found myself in the surreal situation of trying to convince some hot headed Sunni Arabs of just how ill advised war with Iran would be. Yes many, a minority but some fear and loathe Iran so greatly that they welcome the saber rattling that sometimes emanates from Washington and even Tel Aviv.

If there is a prescription that will reduce tensions in the region it is finding a solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. And for this to really be productive it must include a prescription in which Israel and the Arab world not only sign a peace treaty with a genuinely independent and viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital - Israel must be genuinely integrated into the region. The day MUST come when a Jewish person in Tel Avi can get in their car and drive a few hours and have lunch in Damascus and an Arab in person in Damascus can get in their car and drive a few hours and enjoy the Beach in Haifa.

Having lived in the Middle East close to half my life I am frankly and genuinely convinced that the Arab world is ready to move on and put the past behind and do this. I hope and I think that most Israelis may be ready as well.

Now I am not interested in trying to convince anyone that Zionism or the establishment of the Israeli state was immoral or even a mistake. For one thing I certainly have figured out by now that I would fail in that task if I tried. For another thing I don't think that it would be doing anything productive in the way of advancing understanding if I tried.

My point I have tried to make is that Arab people are not a bunch of racist Jew-hating monsters who will never be satisfied until the Middle East is rid of them. Arabs are a kindly and warm hearted people. And in the absence of a deep and bitter conflict and sometimes even in spite of this - the kindness and warm heartedness will be extended to Jewish people as generously as it is extended to anyone else. I simply believe that it is essential that both peoples try to understand what motivates the other. And that it is essential that both peoples get away from understanding where the other is coming from.

But to try to answer some of your points you raised.

a) In that the Palestinian-Arabs made up the overwhelming majority wanted to gain sovereignty over their homeland and did not want it partitioned or have sovereignty given to European settlers - to do so was a gross violation of the right of self-determination declared by the world at the end of World War I.
And there certainly is no debate whatsoever that during the event of 1947 and 1948 a great deal of dispossession was accomplished by force and overwhelmingly against non-combatants. And as many as one fourth of the Palestinian-Arabs who did stay behind and became Israeli citizens became internally dispossessed of their land and homes. And there is certainly no question that a great deal of shady maneuvers are used quite frequently in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to dispossess Palestinians of their properties and their homes.

b) I would say motives count for everything. If any people, anywhere in the world discovered that a rapidly rising immigrant population intended to create a state in their country they were living -- this would cause an incredible outcry anywhere. I would dare say that even the most liberal and tolerant people on earth -there is no where on earth in which people would not react ferociously if they discovered that there was an organized plan by immigrants to created a new nation-state in their midst. Why is it that most Israelis reject the unconditional right of return for Palestinian refugees? I would suspect it is because they fear that they would lose sovereignty.

c) This was not simply an issue of immigration. If it had been. That would have been quite different. Prior to the announcement in 1896/1897 that there was a well organized and foreign funded plan to establish a state in their midst - there was very little negative reaction from Palestinian-Arabs.

d) Everyone new that the Palestinian-Arabs would react exactly the same as any other people anywhere else on earth would react if they were told that their homeland was being partitioned and roughly 50% was going to be turned over to a new state representing only about 30% of the population. What if today the UN announced that 50% of Israel and Palestine was to be partitioned and given to establish a Palestinian state? Would Israel accept that? Would they perhaps respond militarily if there was an attempt to force this on them?

e) To describe Arab resistance to Zionism as racism is to truly distort the meaning of the word "racism". Right now in Lhasa, Tibet chinese owned shops are being burned and looted. Would anyone describe this resistance to chinese domination as racism? I'm sure many, if not most Tibetans might say some pretty nasty things about "the Chinese." But can that resentment really be called "racism"?

That is not to say that there is no racism in the Middle East; of course not. And that is not to say that much of the language ends up mixing the words "the Jews" when they mean the Israel state. It is hardly unusual for people caught up in a conflict to direct much of their ire against the ethnic group that dominates the political entity they are fighting. But this is a symptom of the issue, hardly the core of the issue.

Now as I began this discussion I shall repeat again:

The ONLY natural implication of suggesting that Arab motives are irrational and driven only my insatiable racism is to suggest that peace is impossible.

And again as someone once said, "We can either live together or we will die together. I for one prefer that we live together."

[msmcghee]

74. Thanks for the well written comment. I can understand . .

. your position and the ideas you expressed.

Rather than address each point - it seems you have a central view of the history that differs from my understanding. Let's see if I can explain it.

You makes several comments such as, "If any people, anywhere in the world discovered that a rapidly rising immigrant population intended to create a state in their country -- this would cause an incredible outcry anywhere."

The problem I have is that this was not a state or "country" yet. States have the right to determine immigration policy. There was a temporary mandate government and that government determined that some Jewish immigration was permitted - resulting in the 33% Jewish population by 1946. Those Jews did nothing illegal in moving to Palestine. Their original intention was to share the land with the Arabs. When Arab riots made that an impossibility - the UN came up with another plan.

People in stateless territory simply do not have the same rights in terms of controlling immigration that people within recognized states do. It was neither the Arabs nor the Jew's fault that Palestine, the original homeland of Jews, was stateless and in need of development capital and labor as WWII raged in Europe. The establishment of the two states of Israel and Palestine in that stateless territory as envisioned in the Partition Plan made all the sense in the world.

As an aside, I believe there is more than enough evidence that the Arab objections to the state of Israel were racist at their core and remain so to this day. Palestine has been occupied by many states going back centuries including the Ottomans, the Brits, Egypt and Jordan. Only the prospect of Jews having sovereignty there has ever inspired such hatreds and ongoing suicidal wars with the intention to "rid the ME of Jews from the river to the sea".

[Douglas Carpenter]

75. the Ottoman, the Jordanians, the Egyptians and the British did not colonize them.

They did not establish permanent settlements with the plan to make a majority Jordanian, Ottomans, Egyptians or British population in most or all of Palestine. In fact they didn't build any permanent settlements whatsoever.

And there was certainly never any fear that the Egyptians, the Jordanians or the Turks might expel them or expect them to live as second or third class citizens in their homeland.

These is are major differences.

No they were not a state yet. But the numerous declarations at the end of World War I was about the right of self-determination, not only the right of states.

sorry, I have to run. I am late for work

[msmcghee]

76. For when you get back.

DC: "They did not establish permanent settlements with the plan of making most or all of Palestine Ottoman, Jordanian, Egyptian or British. In fact they didn't build any permanent settlements whatsoever."

Palestine was under Ottoman sovereignty for several centuries. Your original argument was based on the right of "self-determination". None of those entities offered them self-determination. Although the Arabs within the new state of Israel were given self-determination in truly democratic terms - and are now the only Arabs in the region to enjoy it.

As far as permanent settlements, the Jews had permanent settlements there already going back 2000 years.

DC: "And there was certainly never any fear that the Egyptians, the Jordanians or the Turks might expel them . . "

All those entities had the power to do as they wished. The Jordanians actually expelled many thousands of Palestinain Arabs from Jordan during Black September. Egypt has expelled members of the Brotherhood, etc. Arab regimes are quite ruthless in this regard.

" . . or expect them to live as second or third class citizens in their homeland."

Arabs live as second and third class citizens in all Arab states. In all the ME only in Israel do Arabs enjoy equal rights under a representational government and a secular legal system.

I know you were in a hurry and can make a better argument. That happens to me too. I'll be waiting. ;)

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. you have raised some points which have validity

but, none of this changes in any form the overall question on hand - that even the most strident early Zionist did recognize. Palestinians where reacting against an alien encroachment just as indigenous people have throughout history.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the philosophic father of the Israeli right was quite correct when he wrote in 1923

"Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of foreign settlement. This is how the Arabs will behave and go on behaving so long as they possess a gleam of hope that they can prevent Palestine from becoming the Land of Israel".
(from 13, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab Word by Avi Shlaim) Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393321126/102-8701952-4352901

These founding fathers of the Israeli state understood that Palestinian resistance was not anti-Semitism or racism, but the natural reaction that is encountered anywhere on earth, by all people throughout history.

The Ottoman period was prior to nationalism taking a foot hold in the Middle East. And Ottoman Empire would have been a period in which not more than a handful of Ottoman officials were stationed in Palestine. Most Palestinians would have barely even noticed that they were there.

The British Mandate under the auspices of the League of Nations was declared from the very beginning to be a temporary arrangement. Even so the Palestinians like the Zionist did begin to to resist the mandate when patience grew thin.

It is absolutely true that there were Jewish communities in Palestine going back 2000 years. In fact prior to the first wave of European Zionist migration - they made up as much as 4% to 5% of the population.
But they didn't welcome the European Zionist either:

To quote from Yakov M. Rabkin, Professor of Jewish History at the University of Montreal in his book: "A Threat from Within: A History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism":

http://www.amazon.com/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991/ref=sr_1_1/103-2802997-3968618?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191735033&sr=1-1

page 41

"Palestinian Jews reacted with fear and even horror at the arrival of the secular Jews from Russia. The legendary "Jewish solidarity" reviled by so many anti-Semites was nowhere to be seen. The Palestinian Jews would certainly not have responded in the same way to an invasion of Palestine by a foreign power, which, from a theological point of view, would have changed little for them. True to the particular responsibilities Jewish tradition imposes upon the Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Israel, they lashed out at the new settlers in dramatic terms. "They do not walk in the path of the Torah and the fear of God...and their purpose is not to bring the redemption close but to delay it..God forbid."

"When the first "proto-Zionist" settlements of Horevei Tzion were established in Palestine in the early 1880s, largely in reaction to the pogroms that had swept Russia, several rabbis gave public support to the newcomers. However, their enthusiasm quickly turned to dismay when they realized that many of the settlers were not practicing Jews."

page 137

"Opposed to the Zionist enterprise from the beginning, the Old Yishuv waged "the fight against Zionism when it grew to the point of invading the holy land.. Its contacts with earliest Zionist settlers were all but non-existent. The Zionist attempt to convoke a "Jewish National Assembly" in 1903 was received with indifference by the pious Jews of Palestine."

-----

I have to agree that the behavior of other Arab countries to the Palestinians has been appalling. However, the Palestinians were not expelled from their own homeland of Palestine by them. And the Palestinians never had any reason to fear that they would be.

It is certainly true that Israel has considerably more democratic forms than any Arab country. Most Arabs would willingly acknowledge that. But it must be said that the Arabs who were able to stay behind after the Nakba of 1948 hardly had self-determination. In fact they remained under military occupation and were not allowed to visit other parts of the new state of Israel including in many cases their own homes until military occupation over them was withdraw in 1966. And to this day I don't believe that anyone would claim that the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel really control their own destiny with self-determination. To this day there has never been one single Arab lead political party that was allowed to participate in the formation of a government. "Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=839029

----------

It is simply a fact of the human condition that the vast majority of people all over the world of all ethnicities and backgrounds will accept a local government derived from their own people more than they will accept a government that is seen to imposed on them by outsiders. The Palestinians are certainly no exception.

My whole underlining point is to argue what Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Moshe Dyan, David Ben Gurion and countless pillars of Zionist history have also argued -- that Palestinian resistance was the normal and natural reaction of people everywhere.

Again, I end as I began with a quote from David Ben-Gurion, the father of the modern Israeli state:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" -- David Ben-Gurion -- as quoted in "The Jewish Paradox" by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World Jewish Congress.

[msmcghee]

78. We have a fundamental problem here.

You seem to want to convince me that the Arabs were justified in resisting the immigration of Jews to Palestine. But you provide no moral or legal basis for that - other than the Arabs really didn't want the ethnic character of their neighborhood to change - to become Jewish dominated.

I keep explaining that the circumstances that existed in the world prior to the the Partition Plan were similar to what was happening throughout the world in all areas affected by the war, circumstances that were causing many neighborhoods to change ethnically. The historic circumstances in Palestine are now well understood by any student of this conflict but let me summarize them.

a) The Jews needed a homeland. Palestine needed capital, labor and development to improve the health and prosperity of its inhabitants.

b) Palestine was not a state, it was a stateless territory under Mandate with the goal of statehood.

c) Jews immigrated to Palestine legally.

d) Arab fear of the rising Jewish population led to riots and attacks on the Jews and eventual counterattacks to the point that a single state for both was seen as impossible.

e) The Partition Plan, though not perfect was at least a workable compromise. It provided statehood for all and some ethnic security for both groups.

You keep explaining that the Arabs were justified in really hating the influx of Jews into the region - if not the Jews themselves. I get that part although I'd say I understand it - I don't see it as justified in a moral sense - in the same way that I don't think white hatred of blacks moving into newly integrated neighborhoods in the US in the 50's and 60's was justified morally.

And I certainly don't agree that hating a different population moving into your neighborhood justifies killing the immigrants. I understand why the Arabs hated the Jews moving to Palestine in large numbers. My point is that that hatred does not justify attacking them and does not negate the circumstances above that resulted in the Partition Plan. The Plan was also an understandable outcome of the geopolitics at the time because of those circumstances.

You can't just claim that the Arabs really really hated the Jews and the idea that all of Palestine would not be politically / ethnically dominated by Arabs - and therefore the riots, the attacks and the war to destroy the Jews and end their presence in Palestine was justified.

Hatred (no matter if it is simple racism or fear of the changing neighborhood) does not justify killing people. The Jews did nothing immoral or illegal by moving in large numbers to Palestine to hopefully establish a homeland there. They didn't conquer anybody or steal their land or "ethnically cleanse" the Arabs from the region. Please explain why they should not be allowed to live there in peace. That is the question.

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. first of all - no sane person is suggesting that even one single Jewish immigrant to Palestine

or their children should have to leave the State of Israel. What is done is done. At this point expecting that would only be one notch more preposterous then suggesting that the European immigrants to the Americas and their descendants should have to leave.

Quite the contrary from suggesting that, I believe that the Israeli people should seek integration into the region. In fact it would be in the long run suicidal for them not to. In fact it would be in the interest of the Arab peoples for the Israelis to become an accepted and vital part of the region.

Ten or fifteen years ago it would have been extremely difficult to sell this in the Arab world. At this point and time, I believe that the vast majority of the Arab world would be quite willing; both the people and the governments.

The path to a peaceful resolution is really not all that complicated.

[msmcghee]

80. Why don't you say what you mean?

Are you suggesting a one-state solution? When you don't just say what you're thinking it creates confusion in our dialog. I try to be very up front about my ideas and what I mean. Please explain yourself.

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. I support whatever is workable and brings peace and equality

I am not ideologically fixed on two-states or one-state.

But at this point and time -- a two-state solution based on a continuation of the Taba talks seems like the most practical possibility.

Although peace between Syrian and Israel has not been my major concern. I an convinced that given Syria's desperate economic problems and isolation not only from the West but also from its Arab neighbors - this would be a great time to resolve that issue as well. This could genuinely change for the better much of the political confusion in the Middle East and could greatly de-fang the Iranian threat. If given a choice I am almost certain the Syrians would welcome reintegration into the world economy rather than isolation and Eastern European style stagnation. This would of course require a withdraw from the Golan. But it would greatly reduced the threat of both Hamas and Hezbollah and would almost certainly mean peace with Lebanon.

The resolution of the Palestinian issue and the Syrian/Golan issue could very well mean full peace with Israeli Embassies in most Arab capitals. It could very well mean the ability to travel freely throughout most of the region for the Israeli people.

Sorry, once again it is almost 6:30pm in this part of the world. And I have to head in for the night shift.

[Vegasaurus]

82. Then there are a lot of insane people around, using your logic

because rhetoric about ALL Jews leaving, taking back ALL the land from the Jews of Israel, is pretty rampant in the Arab world, wouldn't you say?

I still don't understand why you don't take Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, etc at their word. Why don't you believe that they expect every Jew to leave (or be killed)? After all, that is what they advocate and use as part of their political anti-Zionist platform. No one talks constantly about American immigrants leaving, but there IS constant anti-zionist, anti-Jewish talk in the Arab world.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. I'll put it this way,

I discuss this issue all the time with a wide variety of Arab people. I'm sure I have discussed it with at least 100 different Arab people within the past six months -- I have only encountered ONE who believed that 20th century Jewish Immigrants to Palestine and their descendents should have to leave historical Palestinine. And frankly he was a Khamanie follower and he loved Ahmadinejad - 2 people who are hated far, far more than they are loved in the Arab world. And this ONE Arabic person I met who felt this way was considered even by his fellow Shiite Arabs to be an ignorant, country bumpkin . He is the one and ONLY Arab person I have met in the past several years who felt this way.


Now I have told the following story before and I think it is worth repeating:

"About one year ago I had dinner with a friend and a very mild mannered and polite coworker of his named Amjad. Amjad was a Palestinian originally from Nablus and a strong Hamas supporter. One might say that he was full or all the rhetoric one might expect from a strong Hamas supporter. When I asked him if he would support a peace agreement with Israel in exchange for a genuinely sovereign and independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 border and with East Jerusalem as its capital? His first answer was, "Israel doesn't want peace." I then asked him but what if that were to change and and Israel would accept a peace settlement based on the 1967 border with a fully independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital? He paused about thirty seconds to think. And replied, "yes of course, why not?" "

---

And again let's just take a look at a poll of what Palestinians in the Occupied Territories believe about finding a solution to the conflict:

Poll of Palestinian opinion in the Occupied Territories:

Polling Data - Aug. 2007

Some believe that a two-state formula is the favored solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict, while others believe that historic Palestine can't be divided and thus the favored solution is a bi-national state on all of Palestine where Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal representation and rights. Which of these solutions do you prefer?

Two-state solution: an Israeli state and a Palestinian state
51.1

Bi-national state on all of historic Palestine with equal rights and equal representation
30.0%

One Palestinian state
9.8%

No solution
5.4%

Islamic state
2.3%

Others
0.5%

Don't know / No answer
0.9%

.

Source: Jerusalem Media & Communication Center
Methodology: Interviews with 1,199 adults in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, conducted from Aug. 16 to Aug. 20, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

link:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/more_palestinians_favour_two_state_solution

.

[msmcghee]

72. One other thing I'd like to mention.

When I engage you in a discussion like this I am not trying to prove that you are wrong and I am right. I'm really trying to see if I have missed something important about this conflict that maybe I am blinded to because of the beliefs that I hold regarding the moral behavior of people and societies.

When I saw your post above that seemed to clearly express your ideas on this topic I was encouraged to see if you could explain to me what I was missing. I am sincerely interested in comparing and examining our respective beliefs to understand why we come to such opposite conclusions on this.

[LeftishBrit]

61. Great post - I hope you're right in your predictions!

Someone once said, "We can either live together or we will die together. I for one prefer that we live together."


Hear hear!

[Violet_Crumble]

65. That's the only natural implication that can be drawn from such a view...

Excellent post, Doug!

[Crunchy Frog]

32. Actions speak louder than words.

It's becoming pretty clear to me that Israel is not currently interested in any kind of meaningful peace. I really really REALLY wish that our government would stop enabling this counterproductive situation.

[Tom Joad]

49. Obviously if they have so much money they don't need US military aid.

[MaryCeleste]

84. Minor Point: Jerusalem was explicitly and intentionally not covered in Oslo

It was left for later agreements

In Har Homa (more southern than eastern Jerusalem) The land is unoccupied, was mostly Jewish owned. The owners will be/have been paid for it at some point. However, there are going to be a numbers of trees cut down.