Signs of Hope Emerge in the West Bank

[shira]

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: July 16, 2009

NABLUS, West Bank — The first movie theater to operate in this Palestinian city in two decades opened its doors in late June. Palestinian policemen standing beneath new traffic lights are checking cars for seat belt violations. One-month-old parking meters are filling with the coins of shoppers. Music stores are blasting love songs into the street, and no nationalist or Islamist scold is forcing them to stop.

“You don’t appreciate the value of law and order until you lose it,” Rashid al-Sakhel, the owner of a carpet store, said as he stood in his doorway surveying the small wonder of bustling streets on a sunny morning. “For the past eight years, a 10-year-old boy could order a strike and we would all close. Now nobody can threaten us.”

For the first time since the second Palestinian uprising broke out in late 2000, leading to terrorist bombings and fierce Israeli countermeasures, a sense of personal security and economic potential is spreading across the West Bank as the Palestinian Authority’s security forces enter their second year of consolidating order.

<snip>

Asked to explain why the West Bank’s fortunes were shifting, a top Israeli general began his narrative with a chart showing 410 Israelis killed by Palestinians in 2002, and 4 in 2008.

more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/middleeast/17westbank.html?_r=2&hp

[groovedaddy]

1. Signs of Hope Emerge in the West Bank

NABLUS, West Bank — The first movie theater to operate in this Palestinian city in two decades opened its doors in late June. Palestinian policemen standing beneath new traffic lights are checking cars for seat belt violations. One-month-old parking meters are filling with the coins of shoppers. Music stores are blasting love songs into the street, and no nationalist or Islamist scold is forcing them to stop.

“You don’t appreciate the value of law and order until you lose it,” Rashid al-Sakhel, the owner of a carpet store, said as he stood in his doorway surveying the small wonder of bustling streets on a sunny morning. “For the past eight years, a 10-year-old boy could order a strike and we would all close. Now nobody can threaten us.”

For the first time since the second Palestinian uprising broke out in late 2000, leading to terrorist bombings and fierce Israeli countermeasures, a sense of personal security and economic potential is spreading across the West Bank as the Palestinian Authority’s security forces enter their second year of consolidating order.

The International Monetary Fund is about to issue its first upbeat report in years for the West Bank, forecasting a 7 percent growth rate for 2009. Car sales in 2008 were double those of 2007. Construction on the first new Palestinian town in decades, for 40,000, will begin early next year north of Ramallah. In Jenin, a seven-story store called Herbawi Home Furnishings has opened, containing the latest espresso machines. Two weeks ago, the Israeli military shut its obtrusive nine-year-old checkpoint at the entrance to this city, part of a series of reductions in security measures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/middleeast/17westbank.html?th&emc=th

[wurzel]

2. Did this general mention how many Palestinians killed by Israelis?

Or is that of no account?

[pelsar]

3. so i take it.....

that general improvement of Palestinian lives, in both physical security and economic security is of less importance to you than nationalism and tribalism.......

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I don't think the two are separable.

Even if some (by no means all) of the symptoms are currently retreating (and the claim that they are is one I would want to see more than one article asserting before I accept it), they will inevitably return unless the underlying disease is treated.

I care far less about derivatives than about positions - Palestinian living standards may be *increasing*, but they are also still very *low*. And that will remain the case for as long as government of the Palestinians, by Israel, for Israel continues, with the attendant restrictions on travel and trade, water and land theft, destruction of crops and homes, and risk of more making investment a risky business, etc continues.

"Economic peace" without a viable Palestinian state simply isn't workable.

[pelsar]

5. of course they are separable...

how many govts in the world have minorities....100% of them. In fact successful societies are based on the ideal that the minorities put less emphasis on their differences and more on whats common between them and the others living next to them. Your suggesting that somehow the Palestinians are "different..they aren't.


Here I agree:
but they are also still very *low*. And that will remain the case for as long as government of the Palestinians, by Israel, for Israel continues, with the attendant restrictions on travel and trade, water and land theft, destruction of crops and homes, and risk of more making investment a risky business, etc continues.

and according to the article that list of yours is exactly what has been changing....slowly (ignoring the varioius headlines which are more hyperbolic)

Whether or not this is a trend and if it will continue is yet to be seen, they're are a zillion factors both internal and external that are affecting the westbankers, be it gazas experiences, world economy, fatigue of fighting, internet, iran, etc.....
___________

now comes the dilemma and question:
First my own opinion: i believe the Palestinians should have their own state, with a land swap for israel to keep the major blocs...However, i believe they should first have established via education and actual govt and non govt agencies a working democracy.....at that point and only after that, if its still wanted, a referendum would be appropriate, the kind of independence can be voted on.
_____

The reasoning is quite simple: to avoid the gaza experience. The gazans now live under a foreign influenced theocratic dictatorship. If Iran tells us anything, the world in fact will do nothing to help the gazans should they attempt to rise up and throw hamas out.

The concept is quite simple: to list in a hierarchal order which values are most important, as one sees them, and have them implemented in that order. Nationalism is not at the top of the list.....its below civil rights, human rights etc. Independence does not always lead to a free people....as in gaza, iran, zimbabwae, etc Tthose who claim to be "pro Palestinian" it appears to me, care less for the Palestinians civil rights and more for his/tribalist, nationalistic "need" to be governed by "his own." If i was wrong, they're would be a lot of "rethinking" when hamas took over and while it now implements shari law....you'll notice, in fact, its not even a discussed here, how to avoid such a repeat.....

its not so much that i care that the Palestinians live under a real democracy, but i see it as the only real way toward peace, anything less is a cease fire with war around the "next corner."

what do you think....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. The only chance the Palestinian will elect peaceful leadership

is if they are given a chance to achieve something by peace.

The main reason Hamas is so popular in Gaza is because the Palestinians can see clearly that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of them achieving a viable state through peaceful means - Israel is committed to keeping most of the West Bank and to not dividing Jerusalem - and so they see no viable alternative to violence.

I don't think they have any chance of achieving a viable state through violence, either, but hopeless violence offers hope that inaction doesn't.


The only chance for a functioning peaceful Palestinian democracy would be a complete change in Israeli attittudes - for as long as Israel keeps life in Palestine on a wartime footing, they will continue to support militants.

[pelsar]

7. then there is no chance...

he only chance for a functioning peaceful Palestinian democracy would be a complete change in Israeli attittudes -

saying/believing that ones societies values is based 100% on some ones elses attitude and beliefs is the recipe of 100% failure.

and to perfectly blunt about it, i find that "loser attitude" (as any psychiatrist would declare it) to be not just pathetic but hopeless as well.
_______

my attitude toward the Palestinians is based solely on the way they relate to israel...you've made it clear, that they don't have to change anything, but in your mind i should----no chance.

why do you think so little of the Palestinians?
(example the jews pre and post WWII attitude was one of "whats best for the jews" and not stuck in "they did it to us are still doing it to us, therefore we are helpless....)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. That's not what was said....

He didn't say that the onus when it comes to attitude is 100% on one or the other. He made the very sensible point that without a change in attitude from Israel there is no chance of peace. He didn't say it was the only change in attitude required, which is what you seem to have misread it as....

[pelsar]

9. i read it differently...

for as long as Israel keeps life in Palestine on a wartime footing, they will continue to support militants.

i dont know what a "war time footing" means....the amount of israeli raids is directly related to the amount activity within the westbank....as the PA takes actual control, the amnesty that israel gave to many has taken affect, as per the article, life improves. There are areas where the IDF no longer goes...

the "israeli attitude" as per the elections has agreed to the concept of a Palestinian state....its implementation is the problem....and fair or not, a lot depends upon the Palestinians themselves.

____

got a serious question for you......
please read what i wrote in the previous posts" because for the life of me i dont understand why gaza, hamas etc are so ignored. Why are hamas plans for the westbank ignored...why is their governing style so ignored. Do people here really really believe that gazans prefer to live under shari law?...and even if generation one does (which i find hard to believe), why would one expect the next generation to? (iran being a prime example of how difficult it is to rid such a govt and how the world will do nothing....)

I can rarely find any real articles in the general press let alone here about hamas governing style, what actually happens, how to prevent it from happening again, is there a way to "overthrow them."....what it means to actually live under hamas.....does anybody really know just how evil such govts are? (checkpoints, executions, detention without trial......and no press, no HR to protest....)

why are the values of real democracy, civil rights, etc so irrelevant......why is nationalism/occupation the sole subject while how best to implement democracy, civil rights into a corrupt PA is not even a subject. Is nationalism so more important than basic civil rights?

and btw, without a real democractic PA, the next war/skirmish/bombing is just a matter of time.....

or is human rights, civil rights considered an "internal matter"...in which case i then "get it"

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. I suspect, that am not certain,

that either a small majority or a large minority of Gazans support Sharia law.

My evidence for that is that Hamas won a democratic election in Gaza, but that they had elements in their platform besides Sharia law - violence against Israel; opposition to Fatah corruption - that will have won them more votes, so it seems reasonable to assume that not all their voters did so because they supported Sharia.

That's pure guesswork.

As to my views on Hamas:

:- I think that Hamas are a disgusting bunch of thugs.

:- Unfortunately they are a disgusting bunch of thugs who won a democratic election.

:- As such, the best way to remove them from power is to convince the Palestinian electorate to support Fatah. Fatah is widely regarded as corrupt; I don't know for sure if it really is but I suspect it is. Nevertheless, I think it is probably the lesser of two evils.

:- If removing them from power is not possible, the next best thing would be to try to persuade them to mend their ways somewhat.

:- The primary issue of separation is violence against Israel vs negotiation with Israel. At present, there is no chance whatsoever of the Palestinians achieving their goals of a viable state through negotiation. There is likewise no chance of them achieving that goal through violence, but violence offers a much better sense of false hope.

:- By far the best way to make Palestinians support Fatah rather tham Hamas would be to make negotiation a feasible means for the Palestinians to achieve a viable state. I don't see any chance of that happening without a massive sea change in Israeli attitudes, though

:- An alternative approach is to put pressure on the Palestinians by means of the stick of collective economic punishment, home demolitions etc and the carrot of aid. I think that this probably won't be sufficient to persuade them to support Fatah instead of Hamas if Fatah isn't able to hold out at least the glimmer of hope of a viable state, though. I also think that
collective economic punishment of the Palestinians to anything like the current levels is inexcusable.

:- At present, most Palestinians, including certainly Hamas and probably most of Fatah view America and the West as enemies; they are entirely correct to do so. The only way the West could wield serious influence on either the Palestinian electorate would be to change that, by adopting a more even-handed approach to the I/P conflict. But, absent of that, I don't see much chance of them being able to curb Hamas's right-wing social policies and human rights abuses, either.

:- So, in summary, the Palestinians will support Hamas or other groups advocating violent resistance for as long as they can't get a viable state through peaceful means; they won't be able to get a viable state through peaceful means for as long as Israeli attitudes remain remotely similar to what they currently are; Israeli attitudes appear to be hardening, not softening, at present; and so I don't see any real hope for peace in the forseeable future.

:- The only scenario that holds out a glimmer of hope is if the US steps in over the Israeli's heads, to give the Palestinians a credible negotiating partner. But even though Obama is less slavishly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian than his predecessors, I don't see any real chance of that, either.

[Vegasaurus]

12. The Palestinians have received more money and more global support

than any refugee group in history, and yet they still blame others.

Your "reasoning" for why they choose violence and human rights abuses and sharia law and all the other components of their dysfunctional society, as being the fault of oppression is interesting.

Many other groups, including Jews, have risen above much, much worse conditions, and didn't resort to any of the above.

Why people excuse these actions, or blame them on others, is beyond me.

Look at history and we will see lots of groups of people who suffered immeasurably more, and have improved their lives.

The Palestinians could as well.

Don't blame their decades long misery on their "lack of hope".

Others have lived with much less hope.

[LeftishBrit]

17. This sounds just a little too much like the attacks on Israel...

as a collection of demanding brats that exploit America, leech its Treasury and won't stand on its own feet.

The Palestinians have received more global aid than other refugee groups *because* they've been refugees for longer than most groups during the period when global aid to refugees has been provided.

No, it isn't all Israel's fault. Though it is partly. But quite a lot is the fault of several Arab states for keeping them as refugees and using them as a pawn in their quarrels with Israel, but not actually lifting a finger to help. Of course, the Palestinians' own leadership, especially Hamas, have been crap; but that is not the whole story.


'Look at history and we will see lots of groups of people who suffered immeasurably more, and have improved their lives'

And lots that haven't, or didn't for a long time. For the most part, the *most* disadvantaged and desperate peoples did not quickly succeed in establishing well-functioning political societies. Some did in the end. Some didn't; there are several countries right now that are both much more disadvantaged and much more dysfunctional than the Palestinians (e.g. the Congo, to give just one example).

In any case, this article is about Palestinians who *are* improving their lives.

[Vegasaurus]

24. And it's a good thing some Palestinians ARE improving their lives

I wish more could/would.

[Ken Burch]

72. You can't defend the Occupation and then still claim the right to sit in judgment of Palestinians

Palestinians never did anything to Israelis that could have justified the way they're being forced to live now. Palestinians weren't responsible for the Holocaust and they weren't responsible for the exile of the Mizrahis. They never deserved to be treated as if they were the successors in villainy to the Romans, the Inquisition, the Tsars and Schickelgruber.

[shira]

76. so why aren't folks like you livid and doing something about the way Pal'ns are forced to live under

Hamas rule? Where are folks like you and AI, HRW, etc.. to stand up for Palestinians NOW and hold Hamas accountable from here on? Don't you care that Palestinians have FAR fewer civil rights now than at any time under Israeli occupation? Or is it that human rights only mean something to you when Israel is violating them - Hamas gets a free pass?

[Ken Burch]

78. As long as the Occupation continues, there's nothing I CAN do about that.

And I certainly could never do so if I did what YOU want me to do and argued that Hamas' actions JUSTIFY the Occupation. The only way to dethrone Hamas is to end the Occupation. Everything the IDF does only strengthens them. You know that as well as I do.

I support democracy in Palestine. Democracy REQUIRES self-determination. You never see democracy in any nation before it is freed from the presence of another country's troops.

[shira]

81. please read the posts here before you blather on, okay? others have covered these issues.

there is no reason to believe that once the IDF leaves, Hamas will suddenly lose power.

and military occupations in Germany, Italy, Japan, Panama, etc... DID result in democracies with civil rights, not just elections of totalitarian despots.

[Ken Burch]

90. I am livid, but it can't be changed.

And you aren't really interested in seeing it changed. You just go on about it because you see Hamas as a justification for trying to preserve the status quo forever. Why you believe this when the Occupation can NEVER have a liberalizing effect is beyond human understanding.

[shira]

96. so why bother, right? Palestinians are doomed under their leadership - no sense trying to change it

you're only for working to ensure Palestinian human rights and civil liberties when Israel is involved - otherwise it's not really worth your time and effort.

great friend of the Palestinians you are.

And you're wrong about me not interested in such a change for Palestinians b/c I don't know of a better way for true peace to REALLY be achieved in a long and enduring way in that area of the world.

I know that NOT condemning Hamas, Fatah, etc... and working WITH them while pretending they're okay is a sure way to MAXIMIZE and EXTEND Palestinian suffering for several more generations. Why can't you see this?

[Dick Dastardly]

120. You forgot a few things that are the actual reasons for the position they are in.

They engaged in terror attacks against Israel before the occupation and continue to do so.
They joined Israels enemies in multiple wars to destroy it causing the occupation.
The continued support by a majority for the destruction of Israel and for the terror and for groups that support those views and engage in terror.
Why should Israel just pull out and leave their population centers open for attack just because you say that the terror will stop and Hamas will not get support. The Palestinians have shown nothing that this would be the case and in fact have shown the opposite. In this situation only a fool would do as you say and put their country and family in the cross hairs. The Palestinians and their Arab brothers have brought most of it on themselves with their actions and words over the last 60 years. They have made the choices that have taken them to where they are at.

You most certainly can defend the occupation and judge the Palestinians which is simply stating the reasons for the occupation and why it continues. Its much more legitimate than to judge Israel as you do for not just immediately ending the occupation(complete hypocrisy on your part) with no consideration to their history of being attacked, the continued attacks, the continued threats and the exposed position to be attacked they would be in. This is especially so considering its not you or your family that your judgment puts at risk to be attacked.

[shira]

142. Israel's harshest critics are only amenable to propaganda and fiction, not fact or reality

notice how they 'disappear' out of conversation when the facts refute their 'narratives'?

Bueller?

[Violet_Crumble]

27. An attempt at a serious answer....

Okay, I don't think that Hamas and what the West Bank would be like with them in power is ignored. I know that when I read that article in the local paper the other day and saw the photo of people at the cinema, the first thing I thought was that Hamas would close it down pronto and you wouldn't see teenage girls out in public with their hair uncovered. I don't think there's any real dispute that Hamas are sorely lacking in the areas of human rights, treatment of women and other minority groups, and that they're a pack of religious loonytunes who want to force their religious views on everyone they can....

The general (ie mainstream) media aren't good on detail, no matter what they're dealing with, and that's why groups like International Crisis Group are good when it comes to learning about how they govern and how they stay in power. When it comes to any sort of overthrow, it has to come from the people themselves and not outsiders, otherwise it just leads to more bloodshed.

I don't think continued occupation and implementing democracy even belong in the same sentence. It's not possible to have a democracy develop while an occupation continues, which while it continues denies people of the most basic civil and human rights. Political corruption isn't something that's alien to either of our governments, and it's definately not a reason to continue the occupation....

[azurnoir]

28. It was "implementing democracy"

that brought Hamas to power in the first place

[pelsar]

36. there was no democracy......it wasn't even implemented....and it was a coup

hard to forget hamas's take over of Gaza by killing fatah members and breaking with the PA......i think that kind of destroyed whatever "green shoots" of democracy that might have existed.

But the lesson is clear: the Israeli occupation can be replaced with an local occupation that not only is much worse in its implementation, but its sins will be regarded as internal (or not interesting) and hence not subjected to any external pressure. More so, as we see in Iran, a peoples protest will not really be taken into account for a change in governing style (syria also in 1982, showed their disdain for "protest as well, by using poison gas).

what is wrong with first educating and actually implementing democracy with the PA, make it part of the culture before removing the occupation and thereby giving democracy, civil rights, freedom of speech a real chance?....the jews did it pre48.

as opposed to risking sending millions of Palestinians to living under the typical arab dictatorship found in every arab country (lebanon being the exception and Iraq having interesting possibilities) and gaza being the local prime example?...and hamas is just waiting in the westbank for a repeat performance.

[azurnoir]

39. Ah yeah,

the story of the failed US backed coup attempt by Fatah is quite well knowns but who know maybe some newbie will read this and be influenced

[pelsar]

40. huh?

the 'failed Us backed coup?...as far as i know it was a fairy tale to explain why Hamas took over gaza.....as if hamas didnt have a well thought out plan previous to their attacking Fatah members

is that the best you can do to try to justify hamas taking over gaza?.....as if the fanatical well armed group with stated goals needs an excuse to carry out their plans.....
thats the best you got?
----

of course you answer totally ignores the whole concept of implementing democracy first and then going for statehood...the other route...no occupation,without and established democracy, results in a dictatorship, gaza has well established that. Whatever the excuses, one single fact is glaring: Hamas had a plan, and executed in a mere few days...and established a theocratic dictatorship that will probably enslave the gazans for decades to come (as per the iranian model).

and there are those who see it as a model for the westbank....

[azurnoir]

46. A fairy tale hardly

excusing the Hamas take over no it is a fact and just think without that who would be the bad guy dujour oh thats right Fatah, as to those who "see" it as a model for the West Bank- there are also those who see that model as an excuse for Israel to maintain its occupation

[pelsar]

48. so i assume you have no problem with the gazan govt?

you appear to write that, all things considered, its not so bad....and if the same situation does happen in the westbank, that too isn't that bad.....

at least its nothing to avoid...and the risk is well worth it (for you, not the westbankers....)
______

i'm not at all trying to put you on the spot, i'm just trying to settle the hierarchical value system here:
a list if you will of what you (and others) see as the most important values for a society etc. I realize the writing such things down, is usually avoided as its means making a commitment and then actually applying it to the environment...but lets see if you can:

it can't be civil rights of the citizens, otherwise people would be screaming their heads off at hamas and what they're doing to the citizens of gaza......so whats most important?

[azurnoir]

49. Assume whatever you wish and your right your not

"putting me on the spot" at all, but can we then assume that until Hamas took over Gaza by force you approved of the democratic election that won them a majority of parliamentary seats, you must have fully supported that right?

oh and in fairytale characters who is General Keith Dayton?

[pelsar]

50. i thought the elections were a dumb idea...

since democracy is made up of far more than elections.......but given that they won the majority, they were in charge of the civil character of gaza....not its security, that was for the central PA govt to handle.....

in case you missed it, hamas attacked, killed many gazans, set up checkpoints, moral squads, made their own foreign policy....all illegal under the PA laws.....


see how that works. You make an assumption based on a post , ask about it and i then clarify as clear as i can, without an ambiguity....


your fairy tale was the "coup" that never happened in gaza, that many people like to use, to excuse hamas militia and its occupation of gaza today. The fact that the US govt was aiding the PA govt with training is hardly wrong ....govts helping other legal govts is considered a standard....hamas was an illegal milita that does was militias like to do: kick out the legal govt and make life miserable for the inhabitants.....some like to excuse them, though i could never figure out why unless its:

"the ends justifies the means"

[azurnoir]

53. So you "demand" democracy from the Palestinians

but call it dumb when they exercise it? Or just when you do not like the outcome

[pelsar]

55. i demand real democracy....no PR stunts...

real democracy that is integrated within the society.... freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to peaceful protest, liberal education system, etc....

elections as per iran, gaza, USSR, china are not democracy....they are mere PR stunts for the "useful idiots" who use them as "proof" of the "peoples will."
__________

so from the way you wrote i get the impression that democracy/civil rights etc is not the most important value to you.....what is?

[azurnoir]

60. So are you claiming that the Palestinian elections were rigged?

if so by who pray tell? that elections in the countries you mention are not real is common knowledge and btw you forgot Egypt in that list, if the Palestinian elections were a PR stunt it was the US staging it and those elections were for the Parliament, not who would lead, it is usually those that are the PR stunt elections, not the bureaucratic elections as the 2006 elections were. so in that case the PR stunt as you call would have been in 2005 when Abbas was elected

as for the fairy tale as you call it more here and note no one is excusing Hamas but more over lambasting then US President Bushes ham handed handling of the mess.


The Dayton Plan

The introduction went like this:

Moderator: In statements on the program "No boundaries", Hani al-Hassan, a member of the Fatah central committee, accused a faction within the movement of associating itself with the plan laid down by General Keith Dayton, the American security coordinator between Israel and the Palestinians, the gist of which plan was to ignite the fires of internal fighting. But he also said Hamas went in its reaction to the events in Gaza.

Tape of al-Hassan interview: "What Dayton was trying to accomplish was to find a faction that believes in internal fighting; but what was surprising to us in Fatah was that Hamas went beyond reacting to the Dayton faction, and this was a big surprise, because the actual takeover of power in Gaza did damage to the democratic idea".

Moderator: Hani al-Hassan also stressed that what happened in Gaza was the collapse of the plan of the American general Dayton.

Tape of al-Hassan interview: "What really collapsed was the Dayton Plan, and what collapsed with it was the small group of his collaborators who believed in the American point of view. As for the Fatah movement, the Fatah movement did not collapse in Gaza, because 95% of it has no relationship with that Plan."

http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2007/07/dayton-plan.html

This week, a shocking document was published: David Rose's article in Vanity Fair. It describes how US officials have in recent years dictated every single step of the Palestinian leadership, down to the most minute detail. Though the article does not touch the Israeli-American relationship (in itself a surprising omission) it goes without saying that the American course, including the smallest items, is coordinated with the Israeli government.

Why shocking? These things were already known, in general terms. In this respect, that article held no surprises: (a) The Americans ordered Mahmoud Abbas to hold parliamentary elections, in order to present Bush as bringing democracy to the Middle East. (b) Hamas won a surprise victory. (c) The Americans imposed a boycott on the Palestinians, in order to nullify the election results. (d) Abbas diverted for a moment from the policy dictated to him and, under Saudi auspices (and pressure), made an agreement with Hamas, (e) The Americans put an end to this and compelled Abbas to turn over all security services to Muhammad Dahlan, whom they had chosen for the role of strongman in Palestine, (f) The Americans provided plenty of money and arms to Dahlan, trained his men and ordered him to carry out a military coup against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, (g) The elected Hamas government forestalled the move and itself carried out an armed counter-coup.

All this was known before. What is new is that the mixture of news, rumors and intelligent guesses has now condensed into an authoritative, well substantiated report, based on official US documents. It testifies to the abysmal American ignorance, which trumps even Israeli ignorance, of the internal Palestinian processes.

George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the Zionist neocon Elliott Abrams and the assortment of American generals innocent of any knowledge are competing with Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and our own assorted generals, whose understanding reaches as far as the end of the gun barrels of their tanks.

The Americans have in the meantime destroyed Dahlan by exposing him publicly as their agent, on the lines of "he's a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch". This week Condoleezza dealt a mortal blow to Abbas, too. He had announced in the morning that he was suspending the (meaningless) peace negotiations with Israel, the very minimum he could do in response to the Gaza atrocities. Rice, who received the news while she was having breakfast in the exciting company of Livni, immediately called Abbas and ordered him to cancel his announcement. Abbas gave in, thus exposing himself to his people in all his nakedness.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1205012429

[pelsar]

64. the elections were real...but what was missing was democracy...this is a call for AI, HR, etc

the US and israel once again tried to manipulate a government..doesn't always work, which is precisely why AI, HR and all those other really well meaning groups should stop with the high profile PR stunts and start sneaking in text books that talk about democracy...they should risk their lives and comfort and teach secret classes about civil rights to teenagers in the westbank....teach about homosexual rights to people in gaza......

thats what they should be doing......that will bring about real results, with a population that demands accountability from its elected officials......

[azurnoir]

62. To be more complete

as to real democracy that as has been pointed out repeatedly is not possible under a military occupation and it is quite possible that the sealing off of Gaza by Israel with the support until recently of most of the world is what allowed Hamas to grow into the monster it is becoming today

[pelsar]

63. history is a bitch when it proves you wrong....

as to real democracy that as has been pointed out repeatedly is not possible under a military occupation

Japan, Germany, Panama, Grenada as per 4 examples that proves you wrong. Not only is it possible it has happened.......now what are you going to write?

I shall help you...you can write that there are also failures where occupations failed to produce democracies and you will be correct....however its far better to try and have some chance of success rather than not try and end up with hamas in the westbank...i just believe that hamas is about as far from any kind of democracy as one can get and everything should be tried to avoid a repetition of those events....you obviously dont think so...
______

i never said the elections were rigged....elections do not make democracy...i don't know why that has to point out with such glaring examples like iran so recently in the news......

[azurnoir]

66. What I will write is that America and other Western nations

learned more from history that apparently Israel has, the reason for success in Germany could well be attributed to the Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger foundation for the countries of Western Europe, and repelling communism after World War II. The initiative was named for Secretary of State George Marshall and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. George Marshall spoke of the administration's desire to help European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.<1>

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

Japan was much the same albeit its current government is a constitutional monarchy and Panama the US did not give a rats heine until the canal was interfered with then invaded and had a hand in the current government

To make a long story short the US actively encouraged and assisted those countries in developing an economy and recovering their industrial capabilities also there have not been non military US citizens emigrating or being sent by the government to claimi land or build housing development for private US citizens there may be military housing but it is not being expanded against the will of any of the mentioned countries
Israel is currently making the same mistake the the League of Nations made with post WW1 germany by over restriction and economic punishment and well we all know how that worked out

[pelsar]

69. you skipped over the reeducation of the Germans and Japanese...why?

which is what the Palestinians are lacking...the other half of the Marshall plan...being educated in democratic values.....

[azurnoir]

70. so who's "educating" the Palestinians

I did not intentionally skip over it but right now no one is doing it either

[pelsar]

87. and that is the problem.....they are not getting educated in the value of democracy

which is why any independence at this point will most likly lead to a hamas/egyptian/iranian style of government....not exactly beacons of civil rights
____

as far as israel attempting to better their lives...history is full of israeli attempts: be it the industrial area just north of Gaza, called erez which employed 4,000 Palestinians and was considered "plum jobs" until the constant battering of kassams, mortars, suicide bombers, and other bombs forced the israeli industrialists to close up shop.... i doubt the marshal plan people had that problem......

there are other examples of fatah/PA/hamas rejecting any thing "israeli" to improve their lives (of course pre oslo, pre intifada I, the westbank had a constantly increasing GNP and education levels...but their education was Jordanian based and not based on democracy (this i believe was one of the UN demands for the westbank education-but i cant be sure...).

If you want to blame israel, i would say after 67 israel should have tossed out the Jordanian and Egyptian laws and education system and put in a democratic one....that was israels failure. (and of course they would have caught hell for that...colonialism and all that stuff)

[azurnoir]

103. In '67 nobody cared which is probably why Israel didn't n/t

[pelsar]

31. and thats our disagreement....the base

It's not possible to have a democracy develop while an occupation continues,

not only do i believe that it can. and it has to, i believe that it must. Case in point were the jews coming to Palestine, under the turkish and british occupations. They developed all the mechanisms for a democratic country while under occupation....and when the brits left, the new state took over smoothly. The jews were educated and came with ideals and had various types of social govts all across the spectrum... the Palestinians are also very educated in the ways of democracy.....they can develop their own real version now as well with their existing institutions.

the problem with saying that first rid the occupation and then will come democracy is the risk and danger of hamas (or the PA) taking over.....as they did in gaza. Though its been written and said that they came to power via the vote, democracy was hardly a part of real life in gaza at that time, and since then hamas has totally destroyed what hints there were of it. Will the gazans ever get democracy? will they over throw their govt?...if we look at iran, syrian, egypt, saudi arabia....it doesn't look good..the iranian revolt was in fact a complete failure and its been 30 yrs since the 79 revolution.

I believe now more than ever that first the westbankers have to develop a real democracy (gaza is lost in terms of democracy in the near future as far as i can tell). The gaza experience from both sides is to be avoided....

i would like to see AI, HRW etc concentrate their limited resources in developing local versions of themselves in the westbank and gaza....educate the people that civil rights and accountability can be demanded by those governing their society. They will get more "bang for the buck" there with greater returns than with israel. Israel already has its own real system of checks and balances (sometimes....) the Palestinians dont have any.

Gaza is and was a horrible situation......and its citizens are now paying for it and getting squeezed by every direction.....and democracy isn't even on the horizon. The westbanks may not have freedom of the press or speech, but they can demand it from the PA, they can start demanding accountability from the PA...it has nothing to do with the occupation...but for that they will need real outside help, not PR stunts.

[shira]

35. Ben Dror Yemini wrote precisely about this - check out these 2 articles

and you'll find his solution at the very end - last paragraph.

http://www.geocities.com/byemini/EURUPEVERSUSARABS.htm

The content in his 2 articles are prime examples of TRUE liberalism/progressivism.

What he criticizes is the exact opposite - a complete betrayal to all that is truly progressive and liberal.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. There's no comparison between the British and Israel....

The British had no territorial desire for Palestine, were grudgingly there, and didn't move their citizens there en-masse to create settlements. Israel does that in the Occupied Territories and has shown no interest in allowing democratic systems to be implemented and flourish (examples are the destruction of govt offices in Ramallah and refusal to allow Palestinians in East Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian elections)....

There was no democracy in place when Indonesia finally ended their long-running occupation of East Timor and no certainty that a democracy would grow. But Indonesia packed up and left mainly due to the US finally placing some well-aimed pressure on Indonesia. No-one insisted that the occupation should continue until the East Timorese proved they could build and maintain a democracy. The makings of democracy couldn't begin until the occupation had ended...

If Israel's occupation wasn't a belligerant military occupation, I'd think differently about this, but while Israel continues the occupation and continues to make it difficult for Palestinians to get from one town to another, let alone set up a system that took other countries a hell of a long time to get right, it's impractical to demand it...

When it comes to human rights organisations among the Palestinians and run by Palestinians, I don't know of any but PCHR (which cops a slagging from one or two posters here by virtue of it being Palestinian which apparently makes it unreliable). I've read of small groups that deal with prisoners rights which is a big problem when it comes to their treatment by the PA. Apart from that it's groups that are a mixture of Israelis and Palestinians looking out for the rights of Palestinians, and all of them deserve our strong support coz they're doing a great job...

[pelsar]

130. They dont have to get it right...they have to instill its values....

Nor can you use East Timor as an example.....The makings of democracy couldn't begin until the occupation had ended...

i don't understand why you write that....there have been many occupations, when they ended some of the societies succeeded and many failed, there is no "one size fits all solution." I would bet without doing any research that most in fact fail.

Nevertheless, in the I/P conflict we have an abundance of history and experience to look at:

first is iran and its theocratic regime: people protest doesn't work-we just witnessed that. HR, AI, etc have no affect since those values have no worth to the dictatorship based on god.

We see those same values within hamas as they strengthen their grip on gaza....protestors simply get shot.

That is my base, the idea is to avoid those type of govts in the westbank. Nor do i want any confusion here about my stand, though i'm a great believer in civil rights etc, my views are selfish. I don't want a repeat of gaza. God based govts are very dangerous as are other arab dictatorships, they take protests as serious threats and have no real problem in using force (syria 1982, Jordan september 1980) to stop them. Hence once they take hold, any other form of govt is highly unlikely.

That means that generations of Palestinians in gaza today, as in iran, will now be subject to generations of hamas occupation and attacks and threats on israel. Perhaps from the gazan point of view, having hamas take over was a mistake, from mine it wasn't. It clarified what to expect from the Palestinians once the occupation leaves and what not to do.

Leaving the westbank without real assurances that they will not attack and be strong enough to repel the inevitable hamas attempt to take over is the key....paper promises are not worth the ink on the paper. The only assurance we can have if they have a strong society based on democratic values where the politicians in fact have some responsibility toward their own and civil rights are its base and there is freedom of the press, where they can openly discuss the pros and cons of a war with israel, i believe that most would be against it....

gazans dont have that choice nor did they.......There is no harm in pushing a real democratic agenda on the PA, they control their own education facilities, they control their own press, they have their own police units, they control whole cities, the only thing that is stopping the implementation of democratic values with the PA is the PA itself.

...i fail to see why under an occupation they can only make laws that restrict their freedom as opposed to laws that strengthen their own freedom? (Those laws have nothing to do with israel, they make them al by themselves)

why cant they make laws where they have, for example freedom of the press, of speech....?

[Dick Dastardly]

54. That is not exactly true

I don't think continued occupation and implementing democracy even belong in the same sentence. It's not possible to have a democracy develop while an occupation continues,

There are many examples of democracies that were forged under an occupation and even from countries that were anything but a democracy and also never were democracies. A few examples are Japan, Italy, Germany and Panama all of which were previously despotic regimes with little or no experience with democracy. They are all strong democracies now.

[pelsar]

56. good point....

which probably clarifies an interesting point.......

given the failure of gaza to produce anything even remotely like a democracy (i believe it was Palestinians killing Palestinians that was the system used in to establish their present govt, which looking at iran will last generations with no end in sight.....

so why do i read almost nothing (outside of the israeli press) about perhaps the process is flawed? I understand the arab countries preferring nationalism to democracy in terms of the Palestinians, they too don't have democracy...but the "progressive left.".......

i think many of their values are not what they claim......at least not when comes to the Palestinians......

[Violet_Crumble]

59. It is when it comes to belligerant occupations...

And that's what the Israeli occupation is, and those ones you mentioned weren't. It really is ridiculous and unrealistic to demand that a people living under a belligerant occupation develop and implement a stable democratic system as some sort of condition for the occupation to end. How are people expected to do that when they're not given the chance to do it?

[pelsar]

65. the brits were pretty belligerent to the jews in the 40's.....

more so, i thinks its even more unrealistic to expect the Palestinians to somehow miraculously produce a democratic govt once there is no occupation. They're governing style, i.e. autocratic at best will continue and expand. Outside of Lebanon, the local arab countries dont even have even a hint of democracy and iran and syria showed just how they handle opposition, while the world will do nothing. I understand that that is not of the upmost importance to some....i think it is.

The Palestinians in are now governed in terms of their civil society by their own govt.....I can not think of a single reason why AI, HR, journalists without borders etc and all those other groups working with the Palestinians are not demanding freedom of the press, freedom of speech, no more detentions, executions from the PA. It will mean risking their lives and comfort to do so....to go there and teach them....but that is what belief is all about.

without a stable democratic system within the PA.....your simply sentencing Palestinians to the hamas version of government at worst and at best to an egyptian style for generations....where no HR, AI will have any influence.....i think that is wrong.

[Dick Dastardly]

119. Belligerence,that is nonsense, The level of destruction is not even comparable

Prior to their occupation Japan and Germany were utterly crushed by the allies and it was unimaginably worse than what happened to the Palestinians. Their occupation was also far harsher than the Palestinians with far more brutal security policies imposed at least during the first few years until they broke completely and were denazified ending any resistance. Japan and Germany had their borders redrawn, Japanese and Germans were expelled from not only when they fell on the wrong side of the redrawn borders but from countries where they had lived for generations. Japan and Germany's civilians faced actual real starvation the first few years. The lucky ones were getting 700 calories of food. The women were raped or used for sex which many traded for food and if there were children no money was allowed to be given as that was aiding the enemy.
There was a resistance movement in both Japan and Germany that targeted the occupation forces and collaborators which lead to even harsher security measures by the allies. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were interned/imprisoned as security threats and many were also brought to trial as members of criminal organizations. There was a resistance movement in both Japan and Germany that targeted the occupation forces and collaborators which lead to even harsher security measures and far deeper denazification policies than just leadership with the targeting of even those who had showed support. Only when the resistance was broken,the people who still supported the regimes/the resistance were purged/broken and the German people showed they put the blame where it belonged on the Nazis and themselves with mass demonstrations against the Nazis and resistance, only then was the occupation softened. Once the resistance ceased and they took responsibility was the occupation eased and finally ended some years later. Even so there are still troops to this day.

The difference is the other occupied people took responsibility for their actions that lead to the occupation as well as during it. They stopped support of those that brought it on them and the criminal groups. They stopped their belligerence and their support of it which the Palestinians have not. Japan and Germany were not calling for the destruction of the US, they did not have strong allies that shared this view and surrounded the US and previously waged for on the US, and they were also not launching terror and other assorted attacks anymore. Saying that it was less belligerent flies in the face of the historic fact of both the utter destruction let loose on them and the harsh post war occupation which both ecliplse the Palestinian situation on a geometric level.

[Violet_Crumble]

121. No, it's not nonsense. Even the Israeli Supreme Court has stated it's a belligerent occupation

There's more than one case where the question of whether it's a belligerent occupation has been answered by the Supreme Court, and here's one of them

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/A34/02007690.A34.HTM

Yr talking in yr post about what went on prior to Japan and Germany being occupied. That's got nothing to do with whether the military occupation itself was belligerent or benign. And when it came to the occupation of both Germany and Japan by the Allies, they were benign military occupations, and anyone who claims that they were far harsher than Israel's occupation of the Palestinians really doesn't have any idea of the post-war situation and what the Allies were trying to achieve in the occupations. Unlike Israel, they weren't trying to take the land they were occupying and move their civilians en-masse onto it...

From the rest of yr post you appear to have an issue with the denazification program in Germany, and get confused and think the word 'belligerent' in 'belligerant occupation' applies to the civilian population, and then go on to make negative generalisations about the Palestinian population...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I'm inclined to agree with you on one point...

I do not see any real chance for peace in the forseeable future.

[LeftishBrit]

19. I hope you're wrong...

I think both sides need to change their attitudes; it cannot be 100% on either side. Hawkishness and violence on one side breeds hawkishness and violence on the other.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. So do I, of course. But do you *think* I am? N.T.

[LeftishBrit]

22. I don't know. I'm somewhat more optimistic than you are.

No one expected the agreement between Begin and Sadat, peace in Northern Ireland, or the reunification of Germany, to give just a few examples. It won't be easy (and I suspect that even with a two-state solution, both states will suffer from resistance from portions of their own populations, including domestic terrorism). But especially with the pressures from America and the rest of the world - it may happen.

[shira]

37. but you expect 'peace' when the occupation ends and Hamas takes over and abuses Palestinians

10 times worse than Israelis ever did in 60 years, under their extreme version of oppressive Islamist rule. Such living conditions will be so much better than what Palestinians currently have under Israeli rule.

:eyes:

Your version of 'peace' is a disaster in the making - there's simply no way with that leadership they will ever co-exist peacefully with Israel. Why believe Hamas would want to co-exist peacefully with their worst Israeli enemies when they have such little regard for their own civilians?

Your version of peace sucks.

[wurzel]

13. Utter B.S.

The Israelis have consistently and ruthlessly undermined every Palestinian government to make very sure they never have an effective government.

[Vegasaurus]

14. Other groups have managed to survive and thrive under much, much worse adversity

The Palestinians want everyone to hold their hands (and support them with lots of money) all the way.

At some point, they have to take at least a little responsibility,

They don't even deserve a state until they do, because no one can run their state for them, and right now, they are acting like squabbling relatives who need adult intervention.

[wurzel]

15. Utter B.S.

The Israelis have deliberately undermined any attempt by the Palestinians to improve their lives. And they have the power to do it.

Now the Israelis are "adults" are qualified to to intervene in the internal affairs of the Palestinians? Do you have any understanding of what you are saying? Responsibility? Are you kidding? Were the Jews responsible for the concentration camps they died in?

[pelsar]

16. i guess you dont like the article?

The Israelis have deliberately undermined any attempt by the Palestinians to improve their lives. And they have the power to do it.

since its about Palestinians having a better life....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. "Better" is a comparative, not an absolute.

Better than when? Better than a few months ago; perhaps, if this article is reliable; but only because they were so impoverished then.

[pelsar]

26. why do you write "impoverished"?

that gives the impression of "dirt poor"...kids looking in garbage cans for food...is that your impression of how the Palestinians in the westbank live?

[wurzel]

42. Give the Israelis time. They are working on it.

And it sure wouldn't bother them if it were the case today.

[pelsar]

47. i take it you dont do much reading on history.....

cause if you did, you wouldnt be writing such nonsense.....or is this a case of:

"the ends justifies the means"........i always though that, thats a rather immoral position, but this is after all a "progressive site"..where it appears to be the norm.(at least in these parts)

[wurzel]

51. "History" totally depends on who is writing it. As you would know

if you ever read any yourself.

[pelsar]

57. in this case its a matter of simple statistics....

the GNP of the Palestinians was growing up israeli occupation and fell under the PA....

nothing to difficult to discover, but it does ruin your thesis-doesnt it..

[wurzel]

108. Statistics are simple? Really?

Stop digging.

[Dick Dastardly]

122. Its not digging its well known established fact

Since the occupation began Israel built schools, roads, hospitals universities, electrical grid, sewer, water and a lot of other infrastructure. The Palestinians worked in Israel, engaged in trade and grew from one of the poorest Arab areas to one with the fastest growing gdp and highest standard of living of any Arab country except the oil states. There is much much more that has been improved.

If you need them I can give you multiple sources

[Vegasaurus]

23. Are you comparing Gaza or the WB to a concentration camp?

Surely you jest.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No, but you already knew that...

After all, remember the thread where you insisted that saying that the Palestinians were the most antisemitic bunch since the Nazis wasn't comparing the Palestinians to Nazis?

[wurzel]

41. No. I am comparing the mindset of the powerful over the powerless.

It is really their own fault this is happening to them. And we really have no choice but to treat them this way. I certainly have heard that kind of B.S. before somewhere. Haven't you?

[LeftishBrit]

29. The British in the past thought lots of groups and countries weren't responsible enough to deserve

states of their own, and that they required the 'adult intervention' of the British rulers.

After the empire ended, some countries did a great job of ruling themselves. Some did a terrible job. (As did some countries that had never been under colonial rule.)

We won't find out until and unless the Palestinians do have their own state. (Though they certainly don't have brilliant leadership at the moment.) But if we use the same standards worldwide - there are plenty of states that 'squabble' and worse, and by the same criteria 'don't deserve a state' - but should outsiders run them all?

And who are the 'adults' here? Israel? The USA? The UN? Not sure I'd rely on any of these to run another society?

[pelsar]

45. the problem is not a failed Palestinian State....

Just as Zimbabwa is a massive failure and little is done about it, so too it will be with a failed Palestinian state...or a hamas controlled one. That should be clear by now with gaza under hamas rule.

The problem with a failed/hamas controlled state is that they will also be attacking israel.......and the inevitable response

We won't find out until and unless the Palestinians do have their own state]

There is no "undo" once the occupation leaves....and if it mimics the gaza scenario of Hamas taking over (and given that, that plan is probably already in place, its a reasonable assumption that it can happen). Do you really believe such a "risk" is worth it?

i would guess that the gazans have now been sentenced to at least several generations if not more of dictatorship as in iran, not exactly a beacon of human rights or democracy.....not to mention the rockets fired off at israel for years.

Why repeat a process that has already shown to be a failure? (this is assuming that human rights and democracy is more important than a theocratic dictatorship).

[wurzel]

52. It is amazing to see the Israelis described as "Adults"

Considering they not only base their right to Palestine on a book written over two thousand years ago; they start frothing at the mouth when other people don't see it that way. Israelis are children with hand grenades, tanks, and bombs in control of a defenseless people who have something they want.

[pelsar]

58. one could say the same for the Palestinians........only more so

Those Palestenians....most of who came after the 1920's when the jews started to develop the land to get some work..and then discovered that their employers were "ugh" jews!! and that was too much for them........in fact there wasn't even "Palestenian identity" before the jews came....talk about a "fictional history"..

and when they get mad?..they start looking to kill as many children as possible-and then put up posters for their heros for killing 5yr olds or bashing kids heads in with their rifles.....

now those are real heros

[wurzel]

109. And this is your idea of "history"?

[pelsar]

110. its has the same quality content as your post n/t

[LeftishBrit]

18. Israel hasn't helped; but I don't think they actually want civil war in either a territory under

their occupation, or an adjacent state. Bad for their own security.

[shaayecanaan]

30. Democracy...

However, i believe they should first have established via education and actual govt and non govt agencies a working democracy.

No other Arab state is a working democracy, except for Lebanon, and you don't like Lebanon. There is Iraq, I suppose, but that is a work in progress. There is not much in the way of democracy in North Africa, as well. And it must be said, as difficult as it must be to establish democracy in Libya or Egypt, at least they haven't had to cope with forty years of foreign occupation.

I'm not sure you actually want Palestine to be a functioning democracy. As Machiavelli made clear, its a lot harder to kick the shit out of people living in democratic regimes than people living in autocracies, as the former have all kinds of difficult assumptions about how they should be treated.

To put it another way, in the 1930s the Zionists had 3 main candidates for the location of their new state:- Uganda, Argentina, and Palestine. All shit-kicking tinpot countries with unassuming, cowering people. No one seriously suggested turning up on the shores of Denmark or Canada and trying to carve out a crag of land for a new state, as they knew the residents there would have objected. Strongly.

Notwithstanding all that, you are essentially saying that the West Bank should transform itself into the Switzerland of the middle East, even before it is allowed to become a state.

I suppose it raises the question of how mealy-mouthed and conditional one's support for peace should be before it is regarded as not being support for peace at all.

[pelsar]

32. your base assumption is wrong...(among others)

its a lot harder to kick the shit out of people living in democratic regimes

since your primary assumption is 100000% wrong....so to is your whole post. I dont get my kicks out of beating the shit out of people..sorry to disappoint.

[Vegasaurus]

33. Idiot post of the day, and slanderous to boot! nt

[shaayecanaan]

34. You're so desperate to impress me, aren't you?

Plus, editing out your post just makes you look gutless.

[shira]

38. how on earth will life be better of peaceful for Pal'ns after the occupation ends, in your view?

Hamas will never allow democratization and civil rights for Palestinians. The W.Bank will turn into another Gaza.

Are you okay with that?

If anything, life will get worse for Palestinians in the W.Bank after occupation ends - not better. But this appears to be okay with you. That's "peace" in your opinion.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

43. What is your view on Zimbabwe? Or South Africa?

Living standards in Zimabwe have massively fallen since Ian Smith was replaced by Robert Mugabe. Do you think ending white rule in Rhodesia was the right thing to do?

I am not certain whether South African living standards have risen or fallen since the end of Apartheid, but I know crime has gone up a lot and I believe unemployment has to. Do you think getting rid of apartheid was the right thing to do?

I don't know whether living standards in Palestine would go up or down if they were allowed a state (although I do know that living standards would increase *massively* if Israel ending its economic blockade of Gaza were part of a peace deal, which makes me suspect the answer would be "up, a lot").

Your assumption that Hamas would take over a Palestinian state is not a justified one, I think. The greatest source of support for Hamas is the fact that there is no chance of the Palestinians achieving a viable state through peaceful means. Presumably, if by some miracle things were to change enough that the Palestinians were to achieve a state, it is very probable that Hamas would have lost support during the intervening period as a viable alternative to violence became apparent.

"We can rule you better than you can rule yourselves" is not an argument that I think should be accepted, ever, and most especially not in cases of government of one people by another people in direct competition with them for resources, amongst whom hatred and bigotry against the governed group are immensely widespread.

If Israel wants to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state, it must let the Palestinians vote for the Israeli government.

[shira]

44. those examples really aren't comparable

it's not as if Israel faces no security threat once the occupation ends - as though Israel has zero to lose by ending it. As the Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005 pullouts show, Israelis are faced with a very real national security threat due to ending occupation - and in this case, the threat in the W.Bank is worse than those 2 scenarios. There is no "other" in those African examples.

Also, any serious and informed observer will tell you that the IDF occupation is the only thing keeping Hamas from taking over the W.Bank.

And your point about Palestinians voting in Hamas is rubbish - they were voted in almost immediately after the Gaza 2005 pullout, when Israel was still negotiating The Crossings Agreement with the PA in order to allow the IDF to get out of Rafah and have the PA and Egypt coordinate for themselves free passage, thereby giving Gazans much more freedom from their "prison". Add to this the greenhouses Israel left behind in Gaza, the fact that both occupation and settlements ended forever there AND 4 settlements in the W.Bank were also abandoned in the "Gaza first, not Gaza last" Israeli initiative, and your claim about Palestinians voting Hamas in out of desperation due to "no peace on the horizon" rings hollow. Say what you will about Israeli motives, but all the PA had to do was 'TRY' to make something out of Gaza peacefully. They didn't even PRETEND to try and you know it. They blew it. They could barely wait until all Jews were out of Gaza before ratcheting up rocket attacks against southern Israel from their new positions on former Israeli settlements.

Let's face it - you talk a good game about the need for Palestinian human rights and freedom but your solution subjects them to a fate at least as bad, and probably worse, than that of people living in Gaza now - and amazingly enough, you (and most with your view) don't seem to have a problem with that. So long as their leaders (elected or not) are doing it to them, being from the same gene pool, whatever happens to Palestinians now becomes an internal matter and your concern for them suddenly disappears and becomes non-existant, just as you don't really care NOW what Hamas does to Palestinians in Gaza (using civilians as pawns and shields with no civil rights). Your position isn't pro-Palestinian at all.

If they don't want a democracy, that's fine with you - forget women's rights, religious tolerance of christians or druze, secular vs. Islamist, jews are another matter entirely, incitement to more violence and anti-semitism, brainwashing children for several more generations. Whatever, right? Without occupation, they're "free" and living SO MUCH better than before. Do you really believe that?

Sorry, but that's a recipe for another failed Arab state and INEVITABLE war against Israel in the future, but now against an Israel whose major population centers are MUCH closer to Kassam range and suicide bombers. Maybe you don't mind that either. Your solution isn't pro-peace as much as it's pro-war and AGAINST Palestinian human rights. You "hope" with some kind of blind faith that once the occupation ends, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa martyrs, PFLP, etc.. let bygones be bygones and become regular working Joes when there is not even ONE bit of evidence you can point to supporting such a ludicrous and delusional scenario.

All indications point to Fatah being too weak to defend their positions against Hamas in the W.Bank without the IDF being there to prevent another coup. At best, you could hope for some regional Arab armies to start their own military occupation of the W.Bank and Gaza so that law and order could hopefully be attained, but is that really better than Israeli occupation in your view? Without an Arab or NATO occupation, maybe you could hope for a Palestinian civil war - Palestinian moderates for human rights vs. Hamas - gee, who would win that one I wonder?

If you care for Palestinian "freedom" and civil rights, you'll have to do better than just hoping things will turn around miraculously in a new Palestinian state. You should be on the front lines railing against Hamas and Fatah for not establishing civil society there, with more checks and balances, civil rights, Palestinian settlements that would finally end the refugee camps in Gaza and the W.Bank, etc. THAT would be the liberal/progressive thing to do and anything less is a betrayal of true liberal values. No excuses, no more war, just getting on with their lives in a REALLY peaceful manner - being REALLY free.

But then, true freedom for Palestinians isn't really your goal, is it?

[Ken Burch]

68. Of course true freedom for Palestinians is that poster's goal

Stop always making these dark insinuations.

And as to what is the "liberal/progressive thing to do", demanding that everyone support the continuation of the Occupation can NEVER be the liberal/progressive thing to, nor can the Occupation ever lead to a liberal/progressive future for Palestinians. The IDF is not entitled to act as if it is the Palestinian peoples' "betters".

[shira]

73. then why aren't folks like you railing against Hamas and calling for freedom of speech, dissent,

civil rights, etc.. in the OPT? Or do these democratic values run a distant second place to theocratic Iranian or S.Arabian style rule - which you must believe is highly preferable to Israeli occupation?

why aren't you demanding that Palestinians have civil rights under their own leadership?

[Ken Burch]

75. I support a democratic leadership for Palestinians

But an American has no moral right to lecture Palestinians on who they choose as their leaders. My country funds the army that occupies their land.

An American has no more moral authority to demand nonviolence from Palestinians(or to make the morally arrogant call for a "Palestinian Gandhi")than a member of the British government had to demand that Indians have THEIR Gandhi(or that white Americans ever had to demand that African Americans choose nonviolence in their liberation struggle). In the last two cases, those people did choose it, and I salute them for it, but it goes without saying that no one with white skin and no one wearing a law enforcement or military uniform ever had the right to EXPECT it from them.

I support people within Palestine that want a secular, democratic future for their country. And every single one of those people wants the Occupation to end NOW. There are no Palestinians whatsoever who think or have ever thought that the Occupation can democratize Palestinian political culture or that the IDF are their protectors. If the Occupation had ended in the Nineties, Hamas would no longer have any support. If the Israeli government hadn't spent twenty-seven years after the Six Day war refusing to negotiate with the PLO(and insisting that it would never allow Palestinians anything beyond the meaningless concept of "autonomy") HAMAS WOULD NEVER HAVE EXISTED!

And you have no call at all to imply that I support Iranian or Saudi Arabian rule. I oppose them. It's the U.S. establishment that supports them, not me.

And we BOTH know that an Israeli attack on Iran could never lead to Iran being democratized, so don't go there.

[shira]

79. you support electing fascist totalitarian leadership or you support institutions that demand civil

rights for all and true freedoms for women and gays, freedom of religion, speech, dissent, etc? I don't see a call from ANY people like yourself to hold Hamas accountable for their actions against Palestinians. Why is that, in your opinion - is it fear of Hamas?

[Ken Burch]

82. They can't be held accountable WHILE THE OCCUPATION GOES ON!

Occupation can never lead to liberalization. Post-World War II Germany can't be compared to this situation, especially since, unlike the Germans, Palestinians are not and never were Nazis.

[shira]

83. huh? so 'caring' folks like yourself should NOT be working on creating a civil society for Pal'ns?

you think Israel withdrawing BEFORE such a civil society is established is the way for long and enduring real peace to be achieved b/w Israel and Palestine?

It appears you're only concerned about Palestinian suffering and human rights if Jews are responsible and if Pal'n leadership is the source it's of no real consequence.

HAMAS cannot be held accountable?

why not? why don't Palestinian human rights count when it's HAMAS violating them?

[Ken Burch]

84. I'm concerned about suffereing no matter who causes it.

I want the suffering ended. The past few years have proven the Occupation can NEVER end it. At some point, you have GOT to accept that.

If the Occupation was doing Palestinians any good, or was producing any better alternate leadership candidates, wouldn't we have seen those people emerge by now? And wouldn't we have seen at least one Palestinian actually SAYING "keep the Occupation, it helps us"? Yet NO Palestinian has said that, which means no Palestinian believes it.

You know the Occupation can NEVER improve Palestinian leadership. You know it as well as I do. Why do you still pretend otherwise? Your position is just as morally numb as the apartheid apologists in the Eighties who supported keeping the white minority regime in power because of the way the ANC treated collaborators. There was no way continuing apartheid could ever have stopped that, and ending apartheid resulted in it being stopped almost immediately. Are you saying that Palestinian Arabs are somehow constitutionally incapable of the same transformation? Everything said about Hamas now was said about the ANC then.

And, if YOU actually cared about a "better Palestinian leadership", you would call for Marwan Barghouti to be released from that Israeli jail so he can be a secular democratic candidate for the PA presidency. It's him or nothing if you want a different Palestinian leadership. There's no one else at all. And there's no chance that the Occupation can produce one.

[shira]

85. if you are, then act like it - condemn Hamas and Fatah for what they do to Paln's

and start TRYING to make life better for Palestinians under Hamas rule....or do you believe that's a waste of time because Hamas won't ever allow it?

What evidence do you have that once the occupation ends, Palestinians will soon start enjoying civil rights and freedoms under their leadership? Even if Barghouti comes to power instead of Hamas, that situation would be no better than Syria or Egypt.

Are you only allowed to criticize Hamas once the occupation ends? Is that when you start standing up for Palestinians who suffer under their Islamist masters and only then do you start proposing 'better' leadership like what Syria and Egypt have?

That's not a recipe for long, enduring true peace between Israel and Palestine, Ken.

ETA:

It appears human rights and civil liberties only count when Jews are responsible - otherwise you don't give a shit what Palestinians endure under others of their own gene pool. That's the end result if you had your way with the I/P conflict, Ken. Why don't you just admit you care for Palestinian human rights - but only when Jews are responsible? With your 'solutions' to this conflict, Palestinians will never have civil rights and freedoms under their own leadership. Look around that region - on what model can you base your 'hopes' for Palestinian human and civil rights under Arab leadership, whether secular or religious?

-----------------

As for Palestinians preferring Israeli occupation over Hamas and Fatah, see this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256492

see posts #107,108,114,115,116.

why aren't you at all interested in helping these Palestinians out NOW - whether the occupation goes on 2 more years or another 40 years? Why sit on your hands just watching Hamas and Fatah abuse Palestinians MUCH worse than at any time under Israeli rule?

[Ken Burch]

86. I want Palestinians to have a better leadership now.

But you and I both know that leadership can't be changed while the Occupation's in place, and we both know the Occupation can never lead to a BETTER Palestinian leadership.

What you want is for me to defend the Occupation. I couldn't do that and still retain any humane values. I support secular and democratic Palestinian people. And EVERY Palestinian says the Occupation has to end NOW. Doesn't that last statement make any impression on you at all? No Palestinian now and none in the past ever wanted the Occupation to go on. Ending the Occupation is the only chance to create space for change within Palestinian political life. As long as it goes on, Hamas can use the fact of the Occupation to keep any change for occurring. The IDF and the Israeli right are Hamas's most effective political allies.

And you also know that my views have nothing to do with anyone being Jewish. You have no call to even insinuate that I'm an antisemite. You owe me an apology for even implying it. My own stepchildren are of a Jewish heritage.

I DO care for Palestinian human rights. But what good would it do for me to defend the Occupation, as you want? And why would any Palestinian even listen to anything I had to say about Hamas WHILE THE OCCUPATION REMAINS IN PLACE?

Of course I hate Hamas, and you know it. But you also know no one can do anything Hamas, especially an American.

You act as if Hamas emerged for no reason, and as if no one in Palestine had any justification for the anger they feel.

Why should the Palestinians have to jump through any more Israeli government hoops at all?

[shira]

88. you say you want that, but you have no desire or will to ensure it

you think criticizing Hamas now is a big waste of time - so what makes you think criticizing Hamas after occupation will yield better results?

what do you think of those quotes from Palestinians who prefer Israeli rule to Hamas and Fatah?

[Ken Burch]

89. You know that no criticism of Hamas no can possibly make any difference

Why pretend otherwise?

Once the Occupation is over, political space will emerge. Look at South Africa. Once apartheid ended, everything that people criticized about the ANC and what was done to collaborators immediately stopped.

No Palestinian wants the IDF to stay.

[shira]

91. so criticism of Hamas after occupation will result in regime change like in Syria, Egypt, S.Arabia,

Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, etc.? All beacons of civil rights, correct?

the bottom line for you is that if Palestinians are treated like regional Arabs, that's fine with you and you're okay with that - and you believe the shittier they are treated, the more likely that peace will endure between a future Palestine and Israel.

:eyes:

so why cry "human rights" and civil liberties only when Jews are involved, since you're okay with their lack of civil liberties and human rights under Arab leadership?

-------------

No Palestinian wants the IDF to stay.

So all those quotes were lies, right?

[Ken Burch]

92. Knowing the New York Times, most likely

That paper has never given a damn about Palestinians. And neither do you, if you defend the Occupation.

I want democracy and human rights for Palestinians. But you aren't interested in hearing me say that. What YOU want is for me to say "Hamas justifies the Occupation". I can't do that, because that would mean I would have to become a right-wing extremist on all issues if I said that.

[shira]

94. multiple choice question for you, Ken

What's better for Palestinians in your opinion?

a) occupation under Israeli rule with hamas and fatah out of power (like between 1967 and 1993) until the groundwork is finally achieved for a civil society there - perhaps a benevolent Attaturk like dictatorship is put into power
b) life under Hamas / PA rule as we've seen for the last 15 years
c) life under Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, S.Arabian, or Iranian type rule
d) other (please describe)

pick one.

[Ken Burch]

98. False question

The groundwork CANNOT be achieved under the Occupation. The presence of the IDF automatically makes it impossible.

[shira]

99. so an end of occupation will ultimately lead, in your preferred scenario, to no real peace

and no real freedoms and liberties for Palestinians, right?

---------

actually, with Hamas and Fatah out, I believe the IDF could do a Marshall Plan and see to it that some benevolent dictator like Attaturk implements a functioning civil society there (like the Turkey model)

[Ken Burch]

101. There's no way you can draw that conclusion

Of course there is a real possibility of democratic change in post-Occupation Palestine, and of course there can be reconciliation between Palestine and Israel AFTER the Occupation ends. Where do you possibly get the argument that I thought that peace and democracy couldn't possibly occur?


And please tell me I didn't read you right when you said "THE IDF could do a Marshall Plan"? Are you seriously arguing that a Palestinian Ataturk, kept in power by IDF guns, could be a legitimate Palestinian leader?

:wtf:

[shira]

102. look around the region, Ken.....no liberal democracy other than Israel

Lebanon comes closest but with Hezbollah running the country. Not good.

What on earth makes you think once the occupation ends, there's a good chance for Hamas to be taken peacefully out of power?

=================

And I didn't really read you right that you just posted that idea that "THE IDF could do a Marshall Plan"? Are you seriously arguing that a Palestinian Ataturk, kept in power by IDF guns, could be a legitimate Palestinian leader?

You read me right.....Fatah has been in power by IDF guns the past 15 years - why wouldn't you like to see someone like Mustaffa Barghouti (not Marwan) in power creating another democratic model like in Turkey - and once that is established and occupation is over, ONLY THEN are there elections and Palestine becomes another Turkey?

The occupation ends as soon as someone like Barghouti (or another Attaturk clone) is empowered.

[Ken Burch]

107. The most important thing that Americans could do to encourage democracy in the Middle East

Would be to take a firm stand against ANY American military or economic designs in the region. This would also do more to help Israel's security than anything the IDF does in the Territories. The greatest impediment to the advancement of the democratic cause in the Middle East is the association, thanks to recent American actions, of the word "democracy" with the spoil of conquest.

I agree, the Middle East needs secularism and democracy. And non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities in Arab and Muslim countries need greater rights. As well, there should be an apology and compensation to the Mizrahi from all the Arab and Muslim countries they were expelled from after 1948. This was an injustice that must be redressed, and it was an unspeakably stupid act on the part of those countries that did it(countries who had, ironically, morally distinguished themselves a few years earlier by protecting their Jewish populations as zealously as European Christians betrayed their Jewish brothers and sisters. The Middle East needs a lot of change. The adoption of an anti-imperialist mindset by all Americans is going to be crucial to achieving that. We need to accept that the resources of the Middle East belong to the PEOPLE of the Middle East.

[Ken Burch]

71. How can anything ever get better while the Occupation contines?

We've repeatedly proven to you that the Occupation can NEVER result in the Palestinians getting a better leadership. It's been repeatedly shown that no country can ever be liberalized by another country's army. Why do you refuse to accept these realities?

Ending the Occupation won't instantly turn the West Bank into Disneyland(and seeing Mickey and Donald in kaffiyehs would just be weird)but it is the only possible way that democracy can grow there, it is the only possible way that an economic revival can occur, and it is the only possible way to get Palestinians to accept the need to ultimately reconcile with Israelis. None of those things can ever be achieved while the IDF swaggers through the streets of Ramallah, while everyone is kept out of Nablus for no reason, while the olive trees are still destroyed(or illegally replanted on the racist, facist settlements)and WHILE THE SETTLEMENTS grow and their arrogant, violently self-entitled occupations strut around like Palestine is theirs and NOT the Palestinians.

What part of "the center cannot hold" do you not get?

[shira]

74. you mean no one 'progressive' with views like you should try pushing for reform and holding Hamas

accountable? Tell me - when would folks like you and AI, HRW, etc... start heavily criticizing Hamas for the way they treat Palestinians? Do you want Palestinians ruled like the subjects who live in S.Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc...? No one is really standing up for the people in those countries - are we going to pretend that people like you who care so much for Palestinians will suddenly start speaking out for Palestinians against their Hamas masters only AFTER the occupation ends - and that you'll suddenly push for reform, civil rights, checks and balances, etc.. only after Israel is out of there?

[Ken Burch]

77. It's enough that I support those within Palestine who support secularism and democracy

I have no right to denounce Hamas, and neither does anyone who supports the Occupation. And no one at all has the right to cite Hamas as a justification for the Occupation. The Occupation PRODUCED Hamas. At some point, you have got to accept that reality and the reality that the Iron Fist never produces anything but broken bones.

[shira]

80. why can't you denounce Hamas or S.Arabian or Iranian leadership? don't those people deserve

having others who 'care' like yourself, stand up for their rights?

In the case of Hamas, not standing up for Pal'n human and civil rights under that theocratic regime will inevitably lead to more war against Israel even if a peace deal is cut today. But you have 'no right' to criticize Hamas?

[Ken Burch]

93. To you, shira, denouncing the Iranian leadership means calling for an Israeli strike on Iran

Even though you KNOW an Israeli strike on Iran can have no effect but locking the mullahs in power forever. Your concern about this is like the British propagandists of 1914 with their lurid tales of "bayonetted Belgian babies". All those denounciations led to is war.

No good would come of the U.S. trying to overthrow all the bad Arab governments. It can only be legitimate for those governments to fall if they're overthrown by the people of those countries themselves. Iraq proves no U.S. government and no individual American citizen can have the moral authority to do the kind of war-causing "denunciations" you keep demanding".

You just want to revive PNAC.

[shira]

95. if only things were so black/white Ken

I'm not calling for the US or Israel to overthrow the Iranian or Arab govts....only for progressives to unite and relentlessly work to ensure REAL democracy and civil/human rights in Iran, Palestine, etc. via BSD and other such methods.

You think that's a waste of time, apparently - right?

[Ken Burch]

97. I'm for democracy everywhere

But that can't be done by people from country "A" saying to people from country "B" "we're going to talk about democracy, because we're better than you".

[shira]

100. but your choice to do nothing to ensure it makes for NO democracy anywhere that needs it

put simply, why should the UNHRC, Amnesty, HRW, etc.. focus anymore of their time on hopeless causes - why not let the people in those countries rot? They're just spinning their wheels in your universe, right? They should pack it up in 3rd world countries and focus all their energies on the first world countries, right?

[Ken Burch]

104. Nothing in Palestine can be changed by an American saying "Down With Hamas!"

And the IDF can't liberate Palestinians from Hamas. All Palestinians would consider the very idea beyond insulting.

[shira]

105. merely ranting against Israel and the USA will not help Palns' whose human rights are being violated

I'm betting that being a moral narcissist (they're all bad, I'm not, see I care) is fun sometimes, huh?

[Ken Burch]

106. Not being a moral narcissist, I wouldn't know.

Oh, and I criticize the Israeli government, I don't "rant against Israel". Nor do I hate all Israelis, nor do I equate Israel with all the world's Jews. Any chance you'll retire that meme now?

[shira]

111. that's how I see you - pointing the finger at others, resisting the tough choices yourself

so that you feel some type of moral superiority - and even when your views are exposed (Pal'n human rights are just a means to an end - they don't get any under Hamas) you're unfazed and there's no self-reflection, no adjusting your flawed point of view. Narratives are to be believed over facts, building homes in Jerusalem is morally equivalent to a suicide bombing, etc. Then there's your hyper-criticism of Israelis who are almost entirely responsible for Palestinian behavior (voting in hamas) as if Palestinians lack any agency and cannot think for themselves - which is racist. Expecting more of the (white) Israelis and less of the (non-white) Palestinians is the racism of low expectations. This doesn't faze you either. But this is basically how you 'criticize'. It's your M.O.

It's okay Ken, you're not alone - I see this all the time from the 'critics'.

I'm not impressed.

[Ken Burch]

113. I don't have to put denouncing Hamas before all other priorities

in order to prove I care about Palestinian rights.

And it's not about avoiding hard choices. I'm not sparing myself anything in rejecting your argument that Hamas justifies the Occupation or accepting your delusion that the Occupation can free Palestinians from Hamas(which, as you know, it can't).

I can't place most of the blame on Hamas, as you would like, without giving up all humane values. You want people to obsess about "Hamas, Hamas, Hamas", and to act as if there was no reason that they emerged, because your whole agenda is to let the Israeli government off the hook and to keep the Occupation going forever.

And my criticism is of the Israeli government, not "Israelis". Criticism of the Israeli government is not a collective attack on the Israeli people, and you know it. The Israeli government is simply a group of politicians, and is no more deserving of special protection from criticism than anybody else.

Hamas are bastards, but only ending the Occupation can get rid of them. The IDF can't do it, and the IDF can never be the liberators of the Palestinian people. Had the Israeli government not started its pointless campaign to humiliate Arafat by putting him under siege in Ramallah, Hamas would have gained no support at all. What the IDF did there proves the point I've repeatedly made: that every time the Israelis insist on trying for "peace through victory" they just end up creating a worse enemy. Why, after all this time, can you still not see that? And why can you STILL not see that crushing Hamas militarily(which we both know would have to mean massive civilian casualties)can only lead to something worse than Hamas?

I want Hamas gone. But what you insist on can't get rid of them, unless it is with something worse. It's impossible for Palestinians to be made moderate through humiliation. That doesn't work anywhere, anymore.

I have often adjusted my point of you, it's just that I don't accept yours. You are not infallible on this, shira.

I don't have to accept the "it's all Hamas' fault" problem to prove I'm not tied to a "narrative".

And it's the settlements, which aren't in Jerusalem, but on stolen West Bank land, that I oppose. Only West Jerusalem has any right to be held by Israel. They don't need the eastern part.

[pelsar]

114. you just make shit up dont you....?

you have no idea of the internal politics of hamas/IJ/al ask brigades etc.... i mean you probably don't even read arabic to know what was going on, and even then you wouldn't know what was happening

Had the Israeli government not started its pointless campaign to humiliate Arafat by putting him under siege in Ramallah, Hamas would have gained no support at all

you really think the Palestinians are just so simple that there is only one single cause for Hamas gain?.......and Hamas is so dumb that they wouldn't find other means of gaining support. (even assuming there is something to his humilation)
_____

that is so typical...a westerner, who doesnt even speak arabic, knows little of the culture...makes statements and believes that they actually know what the politics are within the complex Palestinian society....what shall we call it: how about cultural colonialism.....

[Ken Burch]

115. You're only slamming my post because I reject the "it's all Hamas' fault" meme

I've said I don't like Hamas. We all know nothing can be done about them, or at least not without putting another group in their place that would have to be even worse.

I do know this about Palestinian Arab culture: Not being humiliated is key. Not losing face is key. The Israeli government and the IDF obviously don't know this(you'd think at least some of the Mizrahi troops would've clued them to it), because if they did they wouldn't keep insisting on humiliating the Palestinian leadership over and over. Every time they've humiliated the Palestinian leaders of the day, they've just made things worse.

It's not possible to solve this militarily. It can only be done through negotiation and compromise. Remember, Anwar Sadat was just as intransigent-sounding as Hamas(and, unlike previous Arab leaders)he actually STARTED the war with Israel. Yet, four years later, he was negotiating, and he made concessions that went farther than anyone expected(too far, to some degree, in accepting Begin's arrogant demand that the Palestinians get NOTHING at Camp David).

Treating the Palestinian side as equals and with respect is not weakness, and it's not surrender. It's just common sense. This can't be ended with the Israeli government dictating surrender terms and gloating about "crushing the Palestinian dogs".

[pelsar]

124. no..i 'm just rejecting a post based on ignorance.....that makes stuff up

i see it in a lot of your posts...not to mention assumptions made that are also wrong.

some of the assumptions are what i write and others are on a culture that you know little about, yet for reasons that can only be described as the "white mans colonial mentality, you seem to know what they're thinking, how their political culture works and why they act as they do...all without knowing their language or culture from within---Amazing.

I do know this about Palestinian Arab culture: Not being humiliated is key. Not losing face is key.....acutally you dont "know this"...you probably read about it and now you assume you know what it actually means......Perhaps you missed it, but the israeli govt is filled with jews from arab countries who actually lived in arab countries, speak and read arabic and may know just a bit more about the subject......

that said again, you have simplistic views as to what the Palestenians "need" from israel, how they should be treated (isn't that a bit of that cultural colonialism showing through again?).

and another one......(damn, i'm always surprised at just how many things can be made up to demonize israel.....)
in accepting Begin's arrogant demand that the Palestinians get NOTHING at Camp David)

for reasons unknown, you think sadat actually cared about the Palestenians.
___

can you actually back up any of your accusations?........with any real research....or do you, as i suspect, just write down stuff that supports your point of view:

israelis bad, sneaky, mean and we're just nasty people vs everybody else being of good of heart........


and theres more:
And every single one of those people wants the Occupation to end NOW. There are no Palestinians whatsoever who think or have ever thought that the Occupation can democratize Palestinian political culture or that the IDF are their protectors.

you should try talking to some Palestenians who lived under the Israeli occupation vs hamas vs PA or even polls with israeli arabs when there was talk of a land swap with their cities going to the PA or "worse" arabs in e. jerusalem......i understand that you wouldnt like what you would hear, but then again you do seem to have the cultural colonialism mentality that the locals "don't really mean what they say"...as you dismiss them

The groundwork CANNOT be achieved under the Occupation. The presence of the IDF automatically makes it impossible.

wrong again, just as the when the PA came to govern their people during oslo, the changed the whole infrastructure, education system, press and culture, it can also be changed back to a more liberal governing style.

and just for comparison: the jews lived under occupation before 48 and UNDER the OCCUPATION, developed the infrastructure for a democractic society......so your wrong again
____________

seriously, your just making up stuff to suit the narrative you believe, it appears to be more like a religion where if something doesn't fit, well then it has to be ignored, tossed out, or declared "not true".......or at worse you declare that you know what the writer is thinking and therefore the facts are not relevant....

(though i do enjoy reading your views on what keeps hamas going, and how its all israels fault-i suppose the egyptian brotherhood is also israels fault as well....You really should respect the Palestinians more and give them the credit for producing and developing their own culture based on their own choices as opposed to claiming that they're culture is because of "someone else".....you don't think much of them do you?

one final note:
you really do believe you understand Palestinians politics don't you, what motivates them, etc?.....WOW!......thats all i have to say....just WOW

several times you write All Palestinians ..... have you ever met, talk to Palestenians from gaza or the westbank, from villages and cities-you'll be shocked to discover that they have very different views of americans, the occupation, etc.....but it might be hard for you to accept that., but then they're just Palestinians........)

[shira]

116. where do I start?

I don't have to put denouncing Hamas before all other priorities in order to prove I care about Palestinian rights.

but you're hardly denouncing them at all and that's a big problem!

And it's not about avoiding hard choices.

sure it is...critics like you avoid almost ALL the tough questions asked of you - the only conclusion we can reasonably assume is you're too embarassed to admit you're wrong.

I'm not sparing myself anything in rejecting your argument that Hamas justifies the Occupation

so Hamas doesn't justify an occupation? Neither does Fatah? Israel should trust the leaders to control their borders, not fire rockets, not incite terrorism and suicide bombers, etc? you think it would be responsible for Israel to trust Fatah and Hamas now and get out of the OPT?

or accepting your delusion that the Occupation can free Palestinians from Hamas(which, as you know, it can't).

sure it can - and many Palestinians want exactly that as I have shown you. Try to understand that they KNOW they're being shit on by Hamas and Fatah and most of them, believe it or not, hate that more than IDF occupation - which at least gave them freedoms, law and order, etc. They're not as stupid and ignorant as you must think they are - as if they PREFER being treated far worse by Hamas and Fatah than the IDF

I can't place most of the blame on Hamas, as you would like, without giving up all humane values. You want people to obsess about "Hamas, Hamas, Hamas", and to act as if there was no reason that they emerged, because your whole agenda is to let the Israeli government off the hook and to keep the Occupation going forever.

but you're not placing much blame AT ALL on hamas and you've said that's a waste of time anyway as it would make no difference. You pretend as though their role is minimal and that Israel should basically ignore them. Meanwhile you find it useful to mostly criticize Israel and let Hamas off the hook....there is no even-handedness in your approach, as if to say that if you criticize Hamas as you SHOULD criticize them, that somehow lets Israel off the hook (it doesn't). You're all or nothing.

And my criticism is of the Israeli government, not "Israelis". Criticism of the Israeli government is not a collective attack on the Israeli people, and you know it. The Israeli government is simply a group of politicians, and is no more deserving of special protection from criticism than anybody else.

Really? You don't criticize Hamas because that's the people's choice but you criticize Israel _____ why? Trying to understand - you believe Hamas was legitimately elected but that Palestinians shouldn't be "blamed" for that, right? You do just the opposite with Israelis and their govt. Why the double standard? Why am I considered a hater when I blast Hamas but you're not a hater when you blast the govt of Israel? How does that work?

Hamas are bastards, but only ending the Occupation can get rid of them.

:eyes:

How will that happen, pray tell?

And why can you STILL not see that crushing Hamas militarily(which we both know would have to mean massive civilian casualties)can only lead to something worse than Hamas?

Putting an Attaturk in charge by tossing out Hamas and Fatah can never work and the people wouldn't like that? How about Palestinians who can't stand Fatah and Hamas and want them out, as I quoted to you?

I want Hamas gone. But what you insist on can't get rid of them, unless it is with something worse. It's impossible for Palestinians to be made moderate through humiliation. That doesn't work anywhere, anymore.

Depends on what you define as 'humiliation'. If you think confining Arafat in Ramallah was humiliation, what should Israel have done instead with him? I expect an intelligent response here because I'm certain ANYTHING Israel could have done in a catch-22 situation would have been criticized by all the moral narcissists here in our midst.

I have often adjusted my point of you, it's just that I don't accept yours. You are not infallible on this, shira.

I haven't seen you admit to being wrong on anything regarding this conflict. Maybe you can remind me.

I don't have to accept the "it's all Hamas' fault" problem to prove I'm not tied to a "narrative".

You don't have to give them a free pass either, which is exactly what you and others like yourself do.

Only West Jerusalem has any right to be held by Israel. They don't need the eastern part.

They don't need the eastern part? You know what's in the eastern part? Do a little research.

[Ken Burch]

117. "Putting an Attaturk in charge by tossing out Hamas and Fatah can never work"?

What part of "no Palestinian leadership imposed by the force of the IDF could ever be accepted as legitimate by the Palestinian people" do you not get, shira? I can't believe you think this "Ataturk" idea could possibly make sense. To make that make sense in the original Turkish roots of your proposal, you'd have to imagine what would have occurred if the Greek military had invaded Turkey and IMPOSED Ataturk on the Turkish people under a Greek military occupation. Can you possibly imagine THAT flying with anybody in Istanbul(or Constantinople, before it "got the works")?

If the IDF actually did that, it would instantly make support for Hamas AND Fatah soar into the stratosphere in the Territories. It would immediately restore both groups' street cred as "resistance fighters", especially since both would be relieved of the messy business of actually trying to run a government. Why on Earth would you think ANY Israeli government would be insane enough to try something like that?

I deeply dislike Hamas. My preference is for secular, democratic, progressive government everywhere(including Israel, which hasn't had anything like that in years). But that's not what you're actually interested in hearing me say. As your post above indicates, you want me and all progressives to take Israel's side AGAINST all Palestinians(and not just against Hamas). You want me to act like this whole situation is Hamas' fault, that if it weren't for them Palestinians would be perfectly content with the Occupation(which they never were again after the settlement project started, if they were in the six years prior to that)and that Hamas' emergence was some sort of Egyptian fundamentalist plot(which is as bogus as the claim that Arafat and Edward Said weren't actually Palestinians because they were raised in Egypt-as if no Israelis were born outside of Israel).

Hamas doesn't get a free pass from me.

I despise them and wish they'd go away. Nobody in Gaza or the West Bank is actually going to be impressed in the slightest that I've said that, but I have. Happy now?

It's just that I don't accept your belief that getting rid of them is more important than everything else. The end of the Occupation will get rid of them, as it is the one thing that can end the popularity of war-based parties like Likud, Barak's pitiful remnant of Labor, and Beitenyu.

As to East Jerusalem, well, things aren't the same as they were prior to 1967. No Palestinian leadership of today would repeat the Jordanian monarchy's arrogantly stupid decision of 1948 to block access to the holy sites. That's simply not going to happen, because, if nothing else, the leaders today know that the optics would be too bad to risk.

I think Arafat should have gone on being negotiated with, and that he should have been rewarded for the clear moderation he did show by freezing the settlements, once and for all, in the late Nineties. When Israel shamed Arafat, they gave Hamas its big break in show business. This proves that, if Israel insists on crushing Hamas, it can only give some even worse group ITS big break. And I hope you can see by now that the "Palestinian Ataturk imposed by the IDF" idea was, simply put, crackerbox.

[shira]

118. here is that link again, of Palestinians who want an end to Hamas and Fatah

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450#256492

see posts #107,108,114,115,116. None of which come from the NYT.

See, I think part of the problem is you think Palestinians are too stupid to know any better and prefer being shit on by Hamas than being under Israeli occupation - which as crappy as that was, was still WAY better than PA rule. They had rule of law, freedom of dissent, religion, and other civil liberties under Israeli rule. They're not dumb, they know the difference. Their Arab friends in Israel also know the difference.

You must think these are minority views? Lies?

==============

As for Arafat, what did he do that proved to you "clear moderation"?

[Ken Burch]

129. None of those people want to be denied a state

The fact that most people in the West Bank aren't that thrilled with Fatah or Hamas does NOT mean they WANT Israel to deny them self-determination. None of those folks saying "bwana should rule us forever".

[pelsar]

132. and it also means that they aren't stupid...

they see whats happened in gaza and in iran...and they know very well that hamas has the same plan for the westbank.....and that hamas doesnt take well to protestors..they shoot them.

and they also know that fatah is a corrupt as ever as it was in gaza....

and you still believe that given all that, they "all" (now its most") want israel to just get up an leave them to the possibility of a gaza fate?
____

by now we know you don't have any research to back up your beliefs, perhaps you should write in the beginning: "I believe that"..... (and then it will be clear that is just "religion" and nothing more..)

[Ken Burch]

133. The fact that they don't like Hamas doesn't mean they don't want a state

None of those people want the Occupation to go on.

You can't insist that Hamas be put completely out of existence before the Occupation ends. You know its impossible to do that anyway.

[pelsar]

135. that fact that they dont want hamas...

and they dont want israeli occupation doesnt mean that want the occupation to go away as it did in gaza....

life sometimes has limited options........

you seem to believe, without any research, that the westbankers are willing to take a chance on hamas taking over the westbank...but you don't really know, you just believe it....

[Ken Burch]

137. The answer then, is not to HAVE it go away in the same way as it did in Gaza

Don't do it without negotiating with the PA. Don't treat the Palestinians with contempt and disrespect as Sharon did during the Gaza withdrawal. And do nothing to try to sabotage the chances a Palestinian state has for success.

If you want to hold onto the West Bank because you believe in Greater Israel, just say that. Stop already with the insulting "we're just trying to look out for their best interests" rhetoric. The Israeli government is not operating from a position of absolute moral superiority here.

[pelsar]

139. wrong again..should i start counting...

Don't do it without negotiating with the PA

how do you think the withdrawl was accomplished without a single bullet being fired, despite the density of the israelis in areas during the withdrawl? There was full coordination with not just the PA, but hamas, IJ as well.......how is it that the settlements were infact razed, when there were discussions whether or not to keep them, with the Palestinians?...and the rafah border to egypt with the EU involved? and the israeli borders open for materials...etc

and more...that was called "negotiations" Dont you just hate facts and history?-not that it bothers you any

and you just write this..having no idea what it really means...care to put for an example of this "contempt during the withdrawl-i'll understand if you cant find anything
Don't treat the Palestinians with contempt and disrespect as Sharon did during the Gaza withdrawal
_____
again you show your colonial arrogance attitude..as if you actually believe to know my motivations:
i'll make it simple and clear:
my interest is that i dont want kassams and mortars on israeli cities as per the gaza experience and i dont want to reinvade the westbank to stop them and kill 1,000 of Palestinians....

your version of morality is not the issue..... avoiding the killing of thousands of people are. And israel does not control fatah, hamas, IJ, their politics nor their motivations to control their own society...hamas taking over gaza was a 100% Palestinian thing

[shira]

141. they want both, it's obvious they don't want a state with Hamas and Fatah in charge

by their statements - and I know you don't like what they think because it doesn't fit your own superior colonialist view of Palestinians (you know better than they what they want) - it's clear they FIRST want to get rid of Hamas and Fatah, only Israel can do this for them, and THEN they want their own state. They want to go back to conditions 20 years ago when they could speak for themselves - BEFORE Arafat came back and destroyed all their grassroots leadership. THAT is when peace was closest and they want those conditions again.

And for the 2nd time now - how was it "clear" (your words) that Arafat was moderate and therefore didn't deserve to be 'humiliated' as a reward for such moderation?

Or did you make that BS up too?

[Ken Burch]

67. It's always great that there's hope anywhere

But this doesn't vindicate the crackdown, and you know it. Stop trying to turn everything you don't turn in to "they just hate the Jews" into "this proves the IDF is right".

[pelsar]

112. actually your wrong about PA leadership emerging....

during intifada i which was a grass roots effort produced quite a few intelligent, knowledgeable Palestenians leaders who knew very well how to talk to israelis and understood the value of democracy.....olso came along, arafat entered the picture and promptly got rid of them and installed his own corrupt rule...

so your wrong about that.....

(for confirmation, you should be in touch with progressive muslim, who used to post here, she lived in gaza)

and your also wrong where you claim that under an occupation the Palestenians can't demand civil rights from their civil govt.....care to explain why not? If there are laws the limit free of speech by the PA there can be laws the protect free speech.

who developed this theory that the Palestinians can't demand civil rights from the PA while under the occupation?...if they protest in Ramalla.....will suddenly the IDF coming running to break up their protest?

[Ken Burch]

123. I didn't say that Palestinians themselves couldn't demand it.

All I said was that it wasn't appropriate for people like myself(citizens of the country that underwrites the Occupation)to sit in judgment of Palestinians and the choices they make in their struggle. That's completely different than saying that Palestinians can't do so themselves.

The point is, there is no way that(contrary to the delusions of some here)the IDF could ever act as the liberator of the Palestinian people from their less-exemplary leaders. The idea of that is just as nauseating as Meir Kahane's fatous offer to help the Palestinians take over Jordan, if only they would let Palestine itself be Arabrein.

[pelsar]

125. you said it very clearly.....

that no leadership can emerge under the occupation....it did----arafat destroyed them-----you were wrong.

so your against all intl groups helping teach the Palestinians about civil rights, etc so that they can demand the PA/Hamas learn the values of democracy?

at least that is how i understand it........

[Ken Burch]

126. You misunderstood, and I think did so willfully

Palestinians have the right to try to get a different leadership. What I said was that the Occupation can't lead to them getting it. It is going to be much more likely that Palestinians will get a different leadership once the Occupation ends.

What is arrogantly deluded is to pretend, as you do despite the fact that you know this is impossible, that the Occupation can liberalize Palestinian political culture, or that the IDF could ever be the liberators of the Palestinian people.

And if groups not aligned with the Israeli government or the U.S. want to try to help Palestinians develop a more democratic life, more power to them. But groups that are officially aligned with countries in a power relationship to the Palestinians can never have the moral authority to do so.

You wouldn't, for example, have accepted that the British had the right to drag out the Mandate until the Zionist movement was to THEIR liking or met THEIR standards.

And it would never have been appropriate for the South African white minority government to cite the abusive treatment of collaborators that the ANC and Inkatha were sometimes guilty of as a justification for keeping the apartheid system in place.

[pelsar]

127. once again..your words and you were wrong....

Palestinians have the right to try to get a different leadership. What I said was that the Occupation can't lead to them getting it.

the occupation lead to intifada I and local grass roots leadership....a direct result of the Palestinians being educated through working with israelis and understanding exactly how to get what they want from israel... (i doubt you know that actual events, nor are you interested in them, so i'll just skip over them)

and they did, they educated the israelis that the occupation has to end and the process started - oslo. The Palestinians via arafat then promptly destroyed that local leadership all on their own...and in fact restarted the war with israel. I realize you don't like those events, because it means the Palestinians actually made choices on their own both good and bad and in fact have responsibility for much of their present situation (letting arafat destroy their local leadership and bringing in his own thugs and corruption).

your cultural colonial arrogance simply willfully blinds you to the actual events and what they lead to.......and why
____

you shouldn't try comparing the jews and british mandate vs the Palestinians vs Israel....the jews attitude was that they will take what ever they can and make the best of out of it, the Palestinians leadership has the exact opposite track.

[Ken Burch]

128. "The Occupation led to Intifada I"? Tell me you did NOT just write that

The Occupiers do NOT get to claim credit for the REVOLT against the Occupation. That's like Southern plantation owners expecting Frederick Douglass to send them a thank you note.

And you wonder why people call this colonialism.

[pelsar]

131. duh...what do you think intifada I was all about?

the Palestinians were protesting the occupation..i guess you didn't like they way they were protesting?.....or that they were a grass roots effort from the Palestinians from the street?...what part of Intifada I did you disagree with?

i think i know..you like to believe that the Palestinians are infact "helpless" and have no power to do anything. If you look at intifada I as a partial success, which it was, you have to face an ugly fact that destroys your whole thesis:

that the Palestinians do in fact have the power to influence and change events..and are not helpless, and therefore do hold some responsibilities....(you dont like that aspect....)

[Ken Burch]

134. Yes, the Palestinians were protesting the Occupation.

The fact that they were protesting the Occupation cannot be used as a justification FOR the Occupation.

Would you accept the argument that massive anti-apartheid rallies in South Africa vindicate the EXISTENCE of South African apartheid?

The fact is, the Israelis never had ANY right to build settlements in the West Bank or Gaza.
And bringing in an Israeli civilian population never made ANY logical sense.

The West Bank and Gaza were simply meant to be used, temporarily, as bargaining chips, not made subject to what has become de facto annexation. There's never been a justification for Sharon's creation of the settler movement, and that movement has endangered those who joined it, by putting them in an area where their presence would always be a provocation, and the rest of the Israeli population who've been forced to put their lives at risk. If there'd been no settlements and the Territories were just kept with a few troops in observation posts, the situation would have been much more stable and the necessary land-for-peace deal would have been completed decades ago.

It is the height of arrogance for those who defend the Occupation to act as if Palestinians should actually be THANKING them for it. This is where it starts to sound like colonialism. There too, the interlopers came in and claimed that they were "elevating" the locals, and claimed to have a "civilizing mission". If you don't want Zionism to be called colonialism, then don't keep sounding like Colonel Blimp. No colonized people owes their colonizers a debt of gratitude.

[pelsar]

136. the height of colonial arrogance..is ignorance.....

you arrogance is that you seem to interpret writing and actions through a limited lense. A suggestion for you...go out an expand your horizons and talk to Palestinians and israelis....

intifada I was not about "elevation" it was about Palestinians understanding their environment, adjusting to it and adapting their actions to get what they wanted....as opposed to arafats method which was based on violence and was shown to fail in the past and continued to fail, but was good for PR and to line his own pocket with cash and power.

many progressives prefer that method because it "feels" good fighting the occupation as opposed to being a goal oriented strategy that actually produces results.

the differences between intifada i and II are stark...and if you dont know the difference, that should be sign, that you in fact know very little about the conflict.

[Ken Burch]

138. You're still acting as if the IDF deserves credit for the emergence of this leadership

Or if those people would never have become leaders if Palestine had been an independent country the whole time.

The point you're missing is, there should not have been an Occupation for them to lead resistance to. It was enough for Israel to have the lands it had before 1967.

[pelsar]

140. and the arabs

should not have tried to wipe out the unarmed jews in the 1920s and israel in 48....and in 67.....or try to kill jews and israelis all over the world or attack from lebanon in 1979-80 etc etc etc.

the point your missing, is that their strategy for an independent state has been flawed ever since the 1900's when they started to get a national identity...all except one small period called intifada I , when they had real gains toward a real democratic state....

and whether you like it or not...(again those ugly facts) their knowledge of a working democracy came from working with israelis, both arab and jew-i know.....you don't like those facts an the fact that is actually what happend is to be ignored......