Comment / West Bank settlements are good for peace

[Fozzledick]

One of the axioms of the "peace process" is that the settlements are "an obstacle to peace," as if removing them would instantly bring peace on earth. It's well known, however, that before 1967 there were no settlements, and no peace - unless, of course, you consider the communities within Israel "settlements," since the Arabs considered them occupied territory. The greatest contribution of the settlements, then, is that they took the place of Israeli towns as occupied territory, except perhaps for Hamas and considerable parts of the Arab world. Therefore, the formula that removing settlements equals peace is laughable and baseless.

The Arabs' total-denial approach to Israel never depended on settlement on a particular parcel of land. They are bothered by Jewish settlement in Israel in general. It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line.

In 2000, Yasser Arafat was offered an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the territories in exchange for agreeing to end the conflict. He refused, because he didn't consider this a full withdrawal from Palestinian land. Although Israel made yet another step in leaving the Gaza Strip, not only freezing construction there but evicting the settlers, all it got in return was more war and destruction, a far cry from the peace that removing this "obstacle" was supposed to create. In other words, not only did the Arabs not consider Israel's older settlements different from the new ones that "endanger peace," but the eviction of the latter drove them to begin attacking the former. We know now that one thing that motivated Anwar Sadat to come to Jerusalem was his fear that unless settlements in the Rafah area and Sinai were uprooted, they would grow into large cities that no peace agreement could remove.

The Syrians and Palestinians, on the other hand, believed they had nothing to lose if they maintained their refusal to negotiate, since their land would wait for them, frozen in time, until they could graciously take it back from Israel and then attack again from these positions. They can't comprehend that they have lost their lands because of their aggression, and that it is immoral to return to an aggressor the positions from which he might renew his aggression, since letting him escape without harm only encourages him to attack again. There can be deterrence only once the aggressor has paid a price that dissuades him from attacking at whim. This is what happened to Germany.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112588.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. Fuckin' A!

:beer:

[Violet_Crumble]

2. That was a pile of nonsensical dribble...

Can I sue someone and get the few minutes I wasted on that crap back again? ;)


Someone who refers to some mass of people as 'the Arabs' and make comments that seem to imply 'the Arabs' all think the same thing, and who makes some pretty out there claims when it comes to the motivation of people like Anwar Sadat should be thrown in the idiot-basket with the folk who go on about 'the Jews' and make out they all think the same way about things. This guy came to Australian earlier this year and was quite rightly denounced by Australian Jewish groups for his rather bigoted views about Muslims. Maybe he should spend a bit of time talking about what Israel thinks rather than pretending he's got some inside track on what 'the Arabs' think...

[oberliner]

4. Interestingly, he is an Arab

Apparently he was born and raised in Morocco.

[bemildred]

9. Raphael Israeli

Raphael Israeli, an Israeli academic, is Professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.<1> Israeli was born in Fez, Morocco and emigrated to Israel at the age of 14.<2>

Israeli received a degree in Arabic and History from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and became a fellow of the Center of Chinese Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, where he earned an M.A. degree in East Asian History and a Ph.D in Chinese and Islamic History. Israeli is fluent in Hebrew, Arabic, English, and Chinese.<2>

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

An interesting fellow, to be sure.

[shira]

11. an Arab Jew? do any Jews describe themselves this way? Moroccan Jew, fine - but Arab Jew?

never heard of any such thing.

[bemildred]

12. There are, or were, plenty of Arab Jews.

Arab is a linguistic category, the indigenous Jews in Palestine were Arabs, so were the indigenous Christians, Maronites, etc.

It seems clear he is a Moroccan Jew who emigrated to Israel while young, but I can't say I would question calling him and Arab too. I'm not sure how he would feel about that himself though.

[oberliner]

13. Check out the Wikipedia entry

A lot of fascinating discussion/debate on the nomenclature:

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

There is also a book on the subject (called The Arab Jews) which can be read, in part, on Google books.

Edit to add: Whether he identifies himself this way or not, I do not know.

[shira]

14. under that definition, any Jew born in that area the past 1000 years - including now - is an Arab

or are they only Arabs if born before 1948 in Palestine?

hmmm.

[bemildred]

15. Arab:

An Arab (Arabic: عربي‎, ʿarabi) is a person who identifies as such on ethnic, linguistic or cultural grounds.<9><10> The plural form, Arabs (العرب al-ʿarab), refers to the ethnocultural group as a whole; a Semitic people historically residing predominantly in Arabia but today spread across most of the Middle East and many other parts of the world.<11>

Though the Arabic language is older, Arabic culture was first spread in the Middle East beginning in the 2nd century as culturally Arab Christians such as the Ghassanids, Lakhmids and Banu Judham began migrating into the Syrian Desert and the Levant.<12><13> The Arabic language gained greater prominence with the rise of Islam in the 7th century CE as the language of the Qur'an, and Arabic language and culture were more widely disseminated as a result of early Islamic expansion.<14>

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

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I'm not sure why that's interesting...

I read that about him. Not sure what it had to do with what I said about him, though....

[oberliner]

18. Perhaps he fees emboldened to speak about what "Arabs" think because of his background

I've often found, for instance, that some Jewish people think that the mere fact of their being born Jewish gives them special insights into what other Jewish people think.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. No, it's what 'the Arabs' think, and he seems to think 'the Arabs' all think the same...

I get the same off feeling when he speaks of 'the Arabs' as I do when I see people talking about 'the Jews', even if that person is Jewish and perhaps they're emboldened to speak about what 'the Jews' think because of their background. He's a pretty nasty type, Oberliner. Like I said earlier, he was denounced by Jewish leaders earlier this year in Australia because of his views about Muslims. I mean, surely you can see the problem when someone claims there's a third Islamic invasion of Europe happening now?

on edit: Please read LB's comments about him, and I hope you'll be able to understand why I found yr post saying it's interesting that he's an Arab in response to me pointing out he has some rather stinky views to be disappointing....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=285962&mesg_id=286040

[bemildred]

3. I'd like to know how he knows this:

"We know now that one thing that motivated Anwar Sadat to come to Jerusalem was his fear that unless settlements in the Rafah area and Sinai were uprooted, they would grow into large cities that no peace agreement could remove."

There are other statements he makes that I would question, but that one stands out, I don't think I've seen it before.

[sam sarrha]

5. yea.... like Tel Aviv

[bemildred]

6. Sarcasm needs to be coherent to be effective. nt

[oberliner]

7. Poster seems to be implying that Tel Aviv was a "settlement" that became a big city

Could be wrong though.

[bemildred]

8. I got that, it's still not coherent.

Sadat was not worried about getting back Tel Aviv, not did Mr Israeli say anything like that.

[oberliner]

10. I agree with you

A few posters around here seem to prefer the incoherent approach.

[bemildred]

17. Safer that way, I gather.

I tend to be elliptic myself to avoid giving other posters something to fly off the handle about. But I do try to be clear about what I mean to say.

[oberliner]

19. And yet somehow I've still managed to fly off the handle

In response to some of your posts!

You do get a little snippy sometimes, let's be honest.

[bemildred]

20. True.

I do get snippy. And you can't really keep people from flying off the handle, if that is what they want to do. But we generally manage to communicate (Edit: if not always to agree) eventually.

[Jim Sagle]

21. I'm familiar with this guy's other I/P comments. When he comes out and says what he means,

it's not pretty.

Elliptical is good, sometimes.

[LeftishBrit]

22. Raphael Israeli is not a progressive, to put it mildly.

He has written a book called 'Muslim Minorities in Modern States' (basically, he doesn't like them); and similar RW stuff - he's also very pro-Iraq war.

Here's a report on his comments about Muslims in Europe and Australia:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/limit-muslim-migration-australia-warned/2007/02/15/1171405374552.html

He responded with an article, entitled "Muslim Apologist, Thy Name is Coward". I am squeamish about linking to it, but anyone who wishes can google it.

As to whether he's an Arab: it is as hard to come up with a strict ethnic definition of Arabs as of Jews, and I suppose that anyone born in the Middle East who speak Arabic as their first language have the right to call themselves 'Arabs' if they wish to. However, most Middle Eastern Jews don't nowadays; and I am quite sure that *he* would most emphatically reject the suggestion!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Utter nonsense. There is immense pressure on the Palestinians, and very little on Israel

The problem in the ME is Israeli refusal to make a decent offer (combined with the widespread acceptance of the false claim that it has already done so - it's amazing how many Israeli apologists misrepresent what was on the table in Barak's and Olmert's offers), not Palestinian rejectionism.

The status quo is appalling for the Palestinians, and emphatically does not need to be deliberately made worse.

By contrast, the status quo for Israel is very comfortable; international pressure on Israel to make it less so is the only hope for peace.

[shira]

25. nonsense? what do you think Olmert and Barak offered that deserved to be rejected?

We went over this before - remember Neve Gordon's article on BDS in which he called on Israel to make yet another Olmert 2008 offer?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Settlements and Jerusalem

Both Barak and Olmert wanted to hang on to large chunks of the West Bank, and neither was willing to offer Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem.

What Israel needs to offer is withdrawal to the Green Line pretty much everywhere. There may be room for some land swaps, but not at rates nearly as favourable to Israel as Israel has previously proposed, and not on Jerusalem.

[shira]

27. Abbas agreed to land swaps and that's what Olmert offered (extending Gaza)

and there was also an agreement providing PA authority on E. Jerusalem in both the Barak and Olmert deals.

[Vegasaurus]

29. But that wouldn;t bring peace

because the occupation will never end, in the eyes of the Palestinians, until they have "liberated all of greater Palestine",

That means Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc.

That means Israel proper.

[FarrenH]

28. Idiotic, simplistic rubbish