What Palestinians Should Do Now

[Violet_Crumble]

By Ali Abunimah
18 November 2004
The Electronic Intifada

The first priority for Palestinian leaders now must be to defend their people against Israel's relentless colonization and violence and not to negotiate with Israeli guns to Palestinian heads. They must formulate a national strategy to regain Palestinian rights enshrined in UN Resolutions, clearly explain this strategy, and organize Palestinians and allies everywhere to struggle for it, starting with full implementation of the ICJ decision on the West Bank wall. Palestinians should seek to emulate the success of the African National Congress that freed South Africans from apartheid by confronting and defeating injustice, not seeking to accommodate it.

If the PLO and the Palestinian Authority (PA) can transform themselves to take on this role, they deserve the support of every Palestinian. If, however, they plan to continue as they have before, they must dissolve. As constituted by the Oslo accords, the Palestinian Authority harms Palestinian interests, because it obscures Israel's responsibility as the occupying power without providing any minimal protection for the people against Israel's continuous onslaught. Its existence has allowed the spurious agenda of "reform" to trump Israel's obligations under the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions. Palestinian leaders should no longer accept the responsibility for governing Palestinians on behalf of the occupying power. Israel should bear the full cost of its choices.

Yet the conventional wisdom says that Yasir Arafat's death provides an opportunity to revive the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Realities such as Israel's refusal in word and deed to withdraw and allow the establishment of a genuine Palestinian state in the occupied territories have simply been ignored. Dov Weissglas, the most senior advisor to Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, explained in early October that Israel's Gaza "disengagement" plan, which has been embraced by the bankrupt international peace process industry, is actually a ruse to kill--not advance--any peace process. Weissglas said, "when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."

Logically, therefore, any "opportunity" for peace through the establishment of a Palestinian state depends either on a clear change of Israeli policy or a clear willingness by the United States and the international community to force Israel to change its policy. So far, the only policy announcement to come from Israel is that it plans a posthumous "anti-Arafat crusade" in the media.

http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-abunimah181104.htm

[UL_Approved]

1. It sure is Israel's responsibility

The Israeli government has its own version of Iraq. This falls on the shoulders of Israel. They are as much a radical militant state as the U.S.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Definately...

Israel's the occupying power. To Israel a democratically elected Palestinian leadership means the election of quislings who will do Israel's bidding and relieve Israel of it's obligations as the occupying power. If the Palestinian people have the nerve to elect folk who put the interests of the Palestinians anywhere near the top of the list of priorities, they'll get that PR demonising machine cranked up and into top gear...

There's no doubt in my mind that Israel is at the moment a radical militant state. I don't think Israel is as bad as the US, though, because even though Israel is being led by creeps who cynically exploit the existential fears of the Jewish-Israeli population, those existential fears are understandable, even if they are dangerous to the security of Israel and surrounding countries. The US doesn't have any of the history and fears of the Jewish population of Israel to even slightly mitigate what it does in the name of *freedom and democracy*...

Violet...

[UL_Approved]

3. They are further along in the plan

Israel has the Berlin Wall II constructed, and has had for some time. Bush and Sharon are partners in crime, both trying to use Arab citizens as political tools.

[forgethell]

4. The Berlin Wall was

to keep people in. It was part of a country-wide prison. The wall in Israel is to keep terrorists out. Unfortunately, it also has the effect of inconveniencing peaceful, hard-working Palestinians. but this is the price that is being paid for the work of the murderers that are allowed to roam free in Palestinian territories.

[ashiebr]

5. The Berlin Wall was to keep people in................

...........but that's not what the E Germans said!

[forgethell]

7. ah, but

they lied.

[Ardee]

6. Where the buffaloes roam

Well, with a deal of help from the Israelis, Palestinians have no strong central government capable of reigning in Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest. With the treatment endured from Israeli attacks and retaliations against civilian populations many do not wish to reign them in as well....

Regardless of what you think of terrorists you cannot put the blame on the entire Palestinian people while ignoring Israeli colonial and expansionist efforts.

[forgethell]

8. Well, I'm not blaming the

entire Palestinian people. Just the jerks in charge. When they had the capability to rein in the terrorists, they didn't. They educate them in hatred, they say one thing in English and another in Arabic.

I'm not sure what you think the Israelis should do, except to commit national suicide, which they won't.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. When was this?

When they had the capability to rein in the terrorists, they didn't.

When did they have the capability to do that?

Violet...

[forgethell]

10. Oh, probably anytime

prior to his virtual imprisonment in his headquarters. But the point is not that he had the power to shut down terrorism completely, no doubt that he didn't; it is that he never even tried. His whole life was a total wasteland of hatred for Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. How about probably no time....

If you reckon there was a time when the PA had the capability to shut down terrorism completely, then how about explaining what this capability was that they're supposed to have possessed, what they would have been up against if they'd possessed and used this capability, and how incredibly *snort* helpful Israel was?

And for the record, a Palestinian devoting their lives to the cause of Palestinian self-determination and their own state does not equate to hatred of Israel. Then again, if you want to accuse Arafat's entire life of being a 'total wasteland of hatred for Israel', then the same can be said for the total wasteland of hatred for Palestinians and a Palestinian state that has been the lives of every Israeli PM since the creation of Israel...

Violet...

[forgethell]

12. But I never said they had

to shut terrorism down completely. What I said was that Arafat never tried. The man sponsored terrorism, the man organized terrorism. Yes, there were other terrorists besides him. and he never tried.

As for your last paragraph, it is laughable. The Israelis don't want to destroy the Palestinians, they just want them to stop trying to destroy Israel.

But, let's look at it another way. If Arafat was unable to shut down terrorism, or at least fight it effectively, what did he have to negotiate with, or about? When a union goes on strike, what company would negotiate with them if they couldn't get the workers back to work when negotiations were complete. Arafat either couldn't, or wouldn't deliver on his commitments. Therefore he was irrelevant in any "peace process", as the final years of his life showed.

On edit: by the way, Violet, I am going on Holiday shortly, and will probably be away from the computer for a few days. You can PM me if you want to continue the discussion.

[theboss]

31. They WERE the terrorists

Arafat invented modern terrorism. He funded most of the groups. He was their figurehead. He did nothing.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Okay, that was a good attempt at humour...

Now for reality. Arafat did not invent modern terrorism. Not unless you define modern terrorism as any act of violence by a Palestinian, and I'd have to question the motives of those who want to define it like that. Arafat funded groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Not just not likely, but totally impossible. Same goes for him being their figurehead. Of course he was the figurehead of the Palestinian people, and I know there's a bit of confusion in some quarters where they confuse the Palestinian people with terrorists. As for Arafat doing nothing - maybe you should try reading some stuff on the Oslo period, preferably not from right-wing websites...

Violet...

[SweetLeftFoot]

67. Bollocks!!!

"Arafat invented modern terrorism. He funded most of the groups. He was their figurehead. He did nothing."

Lies. Modern terrorism was largely the invetion of the "old" Irish Republican Army. Bombing, assasination, covert urban warfare, all were the succesful weapons of the IRA.

In fact, the IRA were so succesful that the next group of people trying to get rid of Brits and form their onw state - Zionist Jews in Palestine - actually copied the IRA tactics.

The Haganah and Stern gang used terrorist tactics very, very effectively - but mainly because they were following an already proven playbook.

Menachim Begin actually used "Michael Collins" as a nom de guerre when on operations where English was required.

[Ardee]

13. Sorry I do not follow

Are you at all familiar with the situation of the Palestinian people? Are you under the impression that they have a unified leadership? They are poverty stricken, factionalised,hopeless and homeless.

What the Israelis could do:

1. Stop firing into crowds of children
2. Stop dropping bombs on apartment buildings
3. Stop firing missiles at automobiles on occupied roadways
4. Stop driving tanks through peoples homes
5. Stop restricting employment opportunities for Palestinians

[QueerJustice]

37. Good advice...

and I am sure that as soon as its safe to visit a pizza parlor or teens to go to a disco or families to celebrate pesach or visit seaside resorts without risking their lives....they will follow it.... :)

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Good to know where you stand...

So you think it's justifiable to do the following in retaliation for attacks on Israeli civilians?

1. firing into crowds of children
2. dropping bombs on apartment buildings
3. firing missiles at automobiles on occupied roadways
4. driving tanks through peoples homes

Supporting attacks on any civilians is vile and has no place here at DU. If the positions were reversed and you were supporting those things being done to Israeli civilians, that attitude would be equally odious...

Violet...

[drdon326]

39. And one more.....

and when a mother and her 4 kids can drive their car without being

gunned-down like a hunted animal.




sick mfers who committed this atrocity.

[QueerJustice]

43. Unfortunatly theres many more...

....too many more to have mentioned....they have scraped beneath the bottom of the barell TOOOOO many times...

....``sick mfers``? your beeing too kind...

[QueerJustice]

36. 100%

Correct

[pelsar]

14. The Palestenians ONLY route

"Organized along the lines of Israeli Peace Now operations (hashd) -- where sympathizers are shipped in from all over for demonstrations -- but on a more modest scale, 15 busloads of Palestinians have converged on this dusty corner of Qal-qilyah, along with a convoy of private cars. Dodging the donkey carts that trundle along the city streets, they have brought in over a thousand Palestinian demonstrators from cities, towns and villages around the West Bank. There is a large contingency from the Hebron district, and a particularly rowdy crowd of shebab, or Fatah youth, from the villages around Jerusalem. Others have come from the nearby villages of Jayyous and Zawiya, from the West Bank "capital" of Ramallah and, of course, from Qalqilyah itself....."

http://www.jrep.com/Palaffairs/Article-3.html

the palestenians need israelis agreement for a state, without that there will be no state. Armed struggle will not produce it. The only way to get the 50%+ that supported oslo of the israeli population is via a true non violent struggle (martin luther king)...that is the only way the israeli population will aid the palestenians in any great numbers.

http://www.shalomctr.org/index.cfm/action/read/section/IsPal/article/article654.html

I dont know its status today, but if anybody here in the DU is REALLY interested in peace between the two peoples...this is only way it will come about.

[Djinn]

15. I guess the ANC should have just sung

Kumbayah - after all armed struggle was never going to get rid of Apartheid.... :eyes:

[pelsar]

16. Djinn....

we're not S.Africa.....nor do we see ourselves as "superior" to the palestenians....its very simplistic and nice to try to put the israeli/palestenian conflict with the same "black and white issue of S.Africa-because then the moral issue is nice and simple and clean.

however its not simple and its not "black and white"...and for those who really believe that, and help the palestenians to continue their armed struggle, its only going to cost more lives.

real peace, is through non violent struggle, and then the palestenians would have many israelis joining them...voilence just begets more violence and those how advocate it are simply helping prolong the conflict.

[Djinn]

17. so why don't the Israelis

lay down their arms? or is it only Palestinians that have to have a non violent outlook?

As for the moral issue - occupying someone elses land is pretty black and white too.

Name one movement that gained it's objectives through non violence alone - to save time don't use Indian independence/GHandi as an example it's so easilly disputed I'd rather a challenge.

Also what happens when Palestinians and their supporters use classic non violent techniques like standing in front of bulldozers about to demolish a house?

[pelsar]

18. lay down our arms......

well mainly because a quick look at our history of 48, 67, 73 dont lend us much confidence that by laying down our arms as a country we would survive.-we dont consider national sucide an option and its suggestion is rather insulting.

Any argument of who has the moral superiority in this conflict is doomed to get nowhere. That argument is easily countered by the "otherside" and more important is believed to be true by both sides.

here I"ll give you a quick summary of our view of the "moral issue:"

As we see it, the land was taken from jordan, which had de facto ownership since 48 when it over ran the future palestine, and was accepted by the world, seeing as there wasnt any condemnation about it.

The circumstances as they are, with the palestenians latent awakening to a national identity has brought us to where we are today. If your wondering if we "feel guilty" for taking the westbank, sinai, gaza and the golan in 67, the answer is a resounding no, nor are we apolgetic for defending ourselves and taking land from those who attacked us.

what is not clear to us and what is the actual issue, is that if and when we return to the 67 borders (or whatever) are those new borders going to be used as a new positions to attack us?....defending those borders are far more difficult than the present ones, and that to us is major issue. So if the real plan is to overun israel, laying down our arms would be morally wrong as it would lead to our slaughter (and we've been there before....)

Infact, we're still not very confident about our peace with jordan or egypt....they have yet to establish real relations with us, for instance, none of them have ever invited an israeli professor to lecture, professional journalists are forbidden to meet with israeli collegues etc, still no invitations to their TV talk shows, etc....

so they too are not projecting confidence in a real peace. Of course Egypt showing a TV program based on the elders of zion, is totally incomprensable and morally wrong as well. And those neighboring countries are what we look at when arabs/palestineans talk of peace.....

non violence....where they done that in the northern westbank, their jewish neighbors have joined in and changed the walls location and stopped it so as not to infringe on the palestenian livlyhood....

thats is how it works, they show us their intent is peaceful and our peace groups and neighbor join in and help them-its pretty simple and has been shown to work.

and will people be hurt in their non violent protests....in the beginning probably as the IDF adjusts...as time goes on, as confidence in the non violence works so too with the reactions be modified.

your belief that the palestenians must continue their armed struggle is probably one of the reasons this war has been going on for so long. Instead of encourging what is probably the only real method to achieve peace you are advocating the continued use of violence.

BTW that advocation has also helped in turning the PA society in a gang ridden society based on violence within as well.....

http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2004/apr/phrmg.html
(from the palestenian human rights monitoring group)

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Then why expect the Palestinians to lay down their arms?

I'm curious as to why you don't acknowledge that surrounding states as well as the Palestinians also have security concerns regarding Israel's rather aggressive actions in the region. Why is it that Israel is apparently the only state that we are supposed to worry about its security and future?

here I"ll give you a quick summary of our view of the "moral issue:"

As we see it, the land was taken from jordan, which had de facto ownership since 48 when it over ran the future palestine, and was accepted by the world, seeing as there wasnt any condemnation about it.

Who's we? Folk who aren't aware that neither Israel nor most other states recognised Jordan's occupation of the West Bank? Only Pakistan and Britain did. So, no. It wasn't 'accepted by the world'. If it had been, there would have been formal recognition of the annexation, and that formal recognition never happened...

If your wondering if we "feel guilty" for taking the westbank, sinai, gaza and the golan in 67, the answer is a resounding no, nor are we apolgetic for defending ourselves and taking land from those who attacked us.

If yr talking about Israelis when you say 'we', thankfully there are Israelis who do 'feel guilty' for taking land (btw, the Palestinians didn't attack Israel in 1967, and to get into the nitty-gritty, the war of 1967 began when Israel attacked Egypt)...

Infact, we're still not very confident about our peace with jordan or egypt....they have yet to establish real relations with us, for instance, none of them have ever invited an israeli professor to lecture, professional journalists are forbidden to meet with israeli collegues etc, still no invitations to their TV talk shows, etc....

Are you trying to say there's never been any academic cooperation between Israel and Jordan? I might have to go check that one out, because somehow I doubt it. Anyway, when it comes to peace, it's a two-way street, and all too often I see folk making all these demands of the 'other side' but never making the same demands of Israel...

About non-violent resistance and Israel's reaction to it - did you know that about a year before the first intifada, a Palestinian-American called Moubarac Awad, who was a student of Gandhi's non-violent form of resistance, returned to Jerusalem from the US to train Palestinians in non-violent resistance. Israel promptly deported him back to the US. Not that I'd know, cause I've never been there *snicker*, but it's not hard to understand that Israel would feel threatened by non-violent resistance probably far more than it'd feel threatened by violent resistance...

Violet...

[pelsar]

20. israels security...

israel is the only state in the region that has been and remains threatened with actual destruction (check out irans latest)...or are those threats to be ignored? In 48, what do you believe were the plans of the arab armies? 67? ..and not much has changed in the arab press either, hence.I take their threats and lack of recognition of israel very serious.(i.e. normal reations, not pseudo "hudna" type relationship)

when jordan took over the westbank...i dont believe there was a single UN resolution against it, thats what i was referring to (couldnt find one)

nitty gritty of 67?....Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran in may, stopping israeli shipping to eilat and threatening its economy...those are acts of war. (Israel was forced to go to full mobilization effectivly stopping the entire economy).not to mention such indirect threats such as massing it troops on the border, border attacks, removing the UN, screaming on the radio and speaches of the coming war to eliminate israel etc..

The west bank used by the palestenians to attack israel? of course not, they were caught in the middle thats all, but defending ones self is not act to feel guilty of. Or was the jordanian shellling of jerusalem not to be taken seriously by us?...perhaps in hindsite you have a suggestion what israel should have done in 67?...i'm actually quite curious.

as far as non violence goes, of course our military is threatened by it, more than anything else. We are a militant country who has been constantly at war since day one. And we've gotten very good at it, our weak point is the non violent issue, our military is quite useless against it, thats why you should be for it, screaming for it at the top of your lungs....

and I really dont undersand why you arent.....



From the humans right watch:
http://www.hrw.org/press/1999/oct/jorltr.htm

Jordan's Banned Journalists
HRW Press Release, October 29, 1999

The committee acted against the three journalists because they visited Israel in September, in violation of JPA's ban on any form of contact and "normalization" with Israel. The journalists had accepted a private invitation of the Center for Arab-Jewish Studies at Haifa University to attend a seminar about the treatment of Palestinian residents of Israel...

now your turn...what is so threatening about that to the jordanians? a seminar sponsed by israel to discuss the treatment of palestenians in israel?


so too with israeli visiting professors in jordan....they dont exist (I read about it about 4 years ago and havenet heard of anything new

but Jordanians do come to israel...as do jordanian students:
http://research.haifa.ac.il/~focus/2000-autumn/f-05.htm

You right, it takes two to make peace....so where are the jordanians? or egyptians (they do even less....in terms of acedemic relationship). Egyptian TV or newspapers, which are govt controlled, sure dont seem to help the atmosphere....

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Tell you what...

I'll scream at the top of my lungs for non-violence when you also scream at the top of yr lungs for both Israel and the Palestinians to give up violence. Until then, I support violent resistance aimed at the occupying military power, along with non-violent resistance...

Oh, please. The invasion anxiety stuff is kind of lame. North Korea threatened to destroy Australia a while back. Mr. Bin Laden has been known to randomly select us out of a list of countries and do the same. There's a difference between empty threats and being a real threat. Same goes for threats against Israel. Which country has the capability to destroy Israel? And I'm totally shocked that Iran and Iraq didn't have a mutual 'we'll destroy you, you nasty fuckers' rhetoric thing happening during the Iran-Iraq war. And what about the calls by Israeli MKs for the transfer of Palestinians? Why shouldn't Palestinians see that as a threat?

You claimed that the international community had been okay with the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan. There has to be condemnation by the SC before it's safe to say that the international community is not okay with something? What's much more important is the lack of diplomatic recognition, which is what happened in that case. Though Israel was a bit hypocritical not recognising Jordan's claim on the West Bank, as Israel colluded with Jordan to ensure that the Arab state in Palestine never came into being...

You also claimed 'nor are we apolgetic for defending ourselves and taking land from those who attacked us.' But they didn't attack Israel. Israel attacked first. Also, when it comes to acts of war, wouldn't violating the airspace of another sovereign state like Israel is prone to do also be considered an act of war, or is Israel the only state allowed to decide what it believes is or isn't an act of war...

Cute. I see you link to hrw when they say something you think supports whatever it is you think yr saying, yet pooh-poohed them in another thread when their reports were in direct contrast to what you were claiming. You forgot to mention that Jordan's also fired professors who support suicide-bombings....

btw, there's a shitload more to academic cooperation that visiting professors lecturing. But speaking of visiting Israeli professors, I was lucky enough to attend a lecture here by one of Israel's finest, Ilan Pappe :)

Violet..

[pelsar]

22. cant have it both ways....

Until then, I support violent resistance aimed at the occupying military power, along with non-violent resistance.

that then is one of our problems...how does our military (me) know which protest is violent and which isnt...and please dont tell me to wait until I get shot to figure it out....

please explain?

nor did you give me a suggestion as to what israel should have done in 67 (perhaps a minor detail to you but the jordanian army was put under command of the egyptian army on May 30-making it effectivly one single army)

violaton of airspace an act of war? May 17..Egyptian planes entered israeli airspace

btw are you claiming that israel started the war, or encouraged it?

btw, there's a shitload more to academic cooperation that visiting professors lecturing...
for instance? and is it happening

and whats wrong with HRW? do you disagree with their findings? the idea is to answer the content and not the "messenger" I believe thats what I was told my first day here..... I believe my question was to you:

what is so threatening about that to the jordanians? a seminar sponsed by israel to discuss the treatment of palestenians in israel?

the invasion anxiety stuff is kind of lame well thats very sweet of you to say it,except I dont believe that I have to hear that someone wants to destroy me-something about basic civil rights....perhaps you have a suggestion what should i tell my kids when they see nasrallah  on TV when he talks about destroying Israel?...that hes just kidding?

Your "lame" comment is actually a major part of the problem. Your either inabilily or refusal to accept what my concerns are, is the basis for the problem.

Whereas I may not understand the palestenian values in many respects I can accept them..but I also demand them same. You may not understand what my anxieties are or concerns, but anybody wishing to end a conflict must learn to accept without reservation what they dont understand from the otherside...your "lame" comment about what worries me is actually rather insulting and belittling.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. No, you can't...

Which is why I don't understand why anyone would demand that the Palestinian people refrain from any violent resistance to the occupation, while supporting violent actions from Israel...

How would you know which protest is violent and which isn't? Uh, if I were to tell you to wait until you were shot would be just as stupid as if you were to tell me that yr best off just opening fire on any group of Palestinians who look as though they're protesting just in case. I would guess that considering a troop isn't supposed to open fire unless their life is in mortal danger, probably an acceptable line to draw is if someone is aiming a gun at you...

Maybe I didn't give you a suggestion as to what Israel could have done because we weren't talking about that. It's that precision thing ;) I was merely correcting yr claim that Israel was attacked when in fact Israel carried out the first attack..

Violations of airspace. So are you saying that if the planes of another state enter Israeli airspace, that's an act of war, but when Israeli jets do it, that's not? Because I asked you if it was considered an act of war, not for you to rush off and drag up some example of someone else doing it to Israel...

Sorry, but if you honestly believe that professors lecturing is all there is to academic cooperation, I'm not really interested in going much further on this...

You ask me what's wrong with hrw? Where on earth did I say there was?? I'm not the one who said this about hrw: 'btw neither hrw org, nor amnesty etc have "all knowing" powers. Just because they write something about a military operation or a strategic miltary move, hardly makes it true.'

You didn't answer my questions, so here they are again...

Which country has the capability to destroy Israel?

And what about the calls by Israeli MKs for the transfer of Palestinians? Why shouldn't Palestinians see that as a threat?

Why should I be concerned about the concerns of folk who refuse to see a difference between empty rhetoric and very real threats that can be carried out? I'm not really concerned about the concerns of US citizens who believe that Sept 11 was all about hatred of their freedom and that Iraq was involved in Sept 11. There's perceptions that are grounded in reality, and there's others that are grounded in silliness. Others (and this could apply to Israeli fears) are not grounded in reality, and while those fears are understandable given the Holocaust, they're fears that a modern state can't have and stay healthy). Didn't mean to offend you with the comment about lame invasion anxiety fears, but Israel isn't the only country that's had them, and being an equal-opportunity type of person, I label them all as lame...

Violet...

[pelsar]

25. violet.....

How would you know which protest is violent and which isn't? Uh, if I were to tell you to wait until you were shot would be just as stupid as if you were to tell me that yr best off just opening fire on any group of Palestinians who look as though they're protesting just in case. I would guess that considering a troop isn't supposed to open fire unless their life is in mortal danger, probably an acceptable line to draw is if someone is aiming a gun at you..

now add to the fact that gunman dont exactly wave their gun around before they shoot and you get a rather complex and dangerous environment...

as far as 67 goes and precision...guess we were talking about two different things..your point is taken.

my point about HRW, amensty intl etc is that their expertise is human rights violations not military strategy. They are not privy to military info, to strategies used and tactics, hence they're "opinion" of what is and what is not acceptable to the military has no basis. When they write about civil rights abuses I accept what they write.

and the jist: the threat upon israels existance. On one hand we have relentless rhetoric on how evil the jews and israelis are from the whole region, that in itself is uncomfortable to say the least. The outcome of that is that encourages violence against us, that costs lives, both in our homes as well as in our defense of them. Does it threaten israels existence?....no, but if its my family that gets caught in a terrorist attack, thats enough.

there is an actual threat via Iran, and they are religious zealots, something not known for their stability. Today Jordan and Syria are weak, Egypt is not...and though we have a peace treaty with them, it wouldnt take much for them to throw it out, given the minimum relationship that we have with them. So a threat does exist as well as a realistic potential for a future one

but what your missing is the psychology, why on earth should we have to listen and hear that anti semetic crap! It reminds us England throwing us out, France, Spain, we remember the russian progoms, the syrian blood libles etc. And when we hear it today, it doesnt make us more peaceful quite the contray for the first time in 2,000 years we dont have to put our head down and pray they "pass us by", now we check our gun. Israel is a militant society, we've known war from before the state was established and though we are multicultural we still retain a special place for our generals.

the palestenians by using violence simply play into our strong point...usually when you attack an enemy you look for his weak spot, then you can win. Well our weak spot is non violence, it will mess up the IDF, the right will lose its legitimacy that the palestenians are incapable of peace, and the moderate left will be happy to join in.

from our point of view its pretty obviouse, we just dont really understand why the palestenians and their supporters just dont get it.

and finally our MKs, well were a democracy and have no control over individuals, but my point was that govt controlled media can have standards about that stuff, and even in israel our main stream presses dont go around with headlines of how evil natured are the palestenians.


____________________________

hey i have an interesting question for you: for the palestenians who were kick out, is there a statue of limitations upon when they "lose their rights to return".....you know after 100 years or perhaps 5 generations?

why do I ask?...well the jews were kicked out by the romans 2,000 years ago, and now their ancestors have returned, so did they have a right to return home or did the statue of limitations remove that right. And if so, does that mean if we keep the palestenians out for 2,000 years they too will then lose their rights?

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Some comments...

Sorry. I'm in copy'n'paste mode tonight :)

now add to the fact that gunman dont exactly wave their gun around before they shoot and you get a rather complex and dangerous environment...

It would be dangerous if a hidden gunman was present, but don't the troops tend to venture pretty well protected into situations that could be considered dangerous, like with tanks and stuff?

there is an actual threat via Iran, and they are religious zealots, something not known for their stability. Today Jordan and Syria are weak, Egypt is not...and though we have a peace treaty with them, it wouldnt take much for them to throw it out, given the minimum relationship that we have with them. So a threat does exist as well as a realistic potential for a future one

Does Iran have a real military capability to seriously threaten Israel? I would think that the massive loss of life in the Iran-Iraq war would have had long-term effects on the strength of their military, and the harmful economic effects of Iran isolating itself from most countries when it came to trade. Of course that doesn't stop Iran's moronic mullahs from doing incredibly stupid things that have the end effect of harming the Iranian people, like refusing assistance from Israel when that big earthquake hit, and applauding the decision of that guy at the olympics who refused to compete against an Israeli...

Even if Jordan was a big military power, I doubt very much it'd be any threat to Israel. Probably after Israel, it's the most stable country in the Middle East, and has long been the most moderate of the countries in the region. And there's also been a long history of cooperation with Israel. Jordan's undergoing democratic reforms, and while some Americans at DU might scoff and carry on that it's not happening quickly enough, they should consider the fact that reforms carried out too quickly and without the understanding of the people they're affecting can lead to much worse things that what the reform was originally intended to fix. The Shah of Iran is a good example of that with his program of reforms...

Would it really take not much at all for Egypt to ditch the treaty with Israel? Egypt was well rewarded by the US for signing it, and to ditch it would mean an end to US aid. Plus there's smaller things like an end to the Israeli tourist trade to Egypt...

but what your missing is the psychology, why on earth should we have to listen and hear that anti semetic crap! It reminds us England throwing us out, France, Spain, we remember the russian progoms, the syrian blood libles etc. And when we hear it today, it doesnt make us more peaceful quite the contray for the first time in 2,000 years we dont have to put our head down and pray they "pass us by", now we check our gun. Israel is a militant society, we've known war from before the state was established and though we are multicultural we still retain a special place for our generals.

Not only should you not have to hear anti-semitic crap, but like any other form of bigotry, it shouldn't exist at all. Of course that sort of stuff will always exist amongst the dregs of society, but when it seeps into the mainstream through members of a country's government and official statements by a government, that's when it rightfully scares those who the bigotry is aimed at. Tell me if I'm wrong on any of this, cause some of this is paraphrasing Walter Lacquer from his book 'the terrible secret', but hearing bigotry coming from official circles, whether they be the leader of a country, or some nasty twit who's a member of the government, not only are bringing back echos of words and actions in the past from countries that ignored or encouraged anti-Semitism, but it brings back echoes of the Holocaust, and the fears that because people didn't see the danger then until it was too late, and mistook it for another pogrom, that the stirrings of a new Holocaust may not be spotted again until it's too late. So the reaction to those very understandable fears was and is a tendency to jump at every shadow and be determined to get in first to make sure it doesn't happen again. That to me explains the reason behind Israel's habit of reacting in a heavy-handed way, though of course it doesn't make the heavy-handed reactions justifiable...

the palestenians by using violence simply play into our strong point...usually when you attack an enemy you look for his weak spot, then you can win. Well our weak spot is non violence, it will mess up the IDF, the right will lose its legitimacy that the palestenians are incapable of peace, and the moderate left will be happy to join in.

from our point of view its pretty obviouse, we just dont really understand why the palestenians and their supporters just dont get it.

I get it, but I don't entirely agree with the effectiveness of non-violent protest in the current situation. It worked in India because Britain was dependent on the Indian population for the economic riches it got from India. In the case of the Palestinians, they've now been so totally separated from the Israeli economy that non-violence ala Ghandi wouldn't achieve any results. In the past it may have had some effect, but I'm doubtful now. If Palestinians embraced a total non-violence thing, the Israeli right would more than likely wage a campaign of intense provocation against them, claim that peaceful protests were indeed violent (one now-departed and rather extreme person in this forum tried to claim that going anywhere near the separation barrier was an act of violence). I thought it was attacks on Israeli civilians that turned the moderate left off, not violence aimed at legitimate military targets. Regardless of that, any non-violent path gone down by the Palestinians would have not just to be met with full support by moderate leftists, but they'd also have to try their hardest to bring an end to the expansion of settlements, and then later down the track, call for many of them to be dismantled...

and finally our MKs, well were a democracy and have no control over individuals, but my point was that govt controlled media can have standards about that stuff, and even in israel our main stream presses dont go around with headlines of how evil natured are the palestenians.

But how would you feel if a member of another government was making disgusting comments in parliament about Jews? Or if a cabinet member was known to have joined up with thugs and gone around evicting Jews from their homes? Wouldn't you expect the government to have a moral responsibility to do something about that sort of incitement and hatred? And I do recall reading somewhere ages ago that there are limits set on what MKs can say or support, but unfortunately when it comes to bigotry towards Israeli-Arabs and Palestinians, that doesn't apply...

hey i have an interesting question for you: for the palestenians who were kick out, is there a statue of limitations upon when they "lose their rights to return".....you know after 100 years or perhaps 5 generations?

why do I ask?...well the jews were kicked out by the romans 2,000 years ago, and now their ancestors have returned, so did they have a right to return home or did the statue of limitations remove that right. And if so, does that mean if we keep the palestenians out for 2,000 years they too will then lose their rights?

I guess the only statute of limitations on the right of return would be if the United Nations ceases to exist and no other world body takes its place and the world is finally run lock, stock and barrel, by the US and its vision of Might Makes Right. On the romans expelling the Jews from Palestine 2,000 years ago, my question to that would be in that 2,000 year period that passed, what was stopping descendants of the expelled Jews from going to Palestine if they wanted to? The Romans sure didn't hang around to keep them away. Also, being a bit pedantic here, but I have two points to make - the first is that over 200 years ago, a direct ancestor of mine was expelled from his country by the British and dumped on the other side of the world on a continent that was to be used as an open-air prison experiment in British colonialism. As a direct descendant of his, do I have the right to return to the land he was expelled from? Secondly, seeing I do have Jewish ancestry through my dad's side of the family, aren't I also a descendant of the Jews expelled by the Romans 2,000 years ago? Mind you, I see a lot of difference between the long-time spiritual yearning for Israel and the physical yearning that came about with the advent of political Zionism. Palestine was only one of several suggestions for a Jewish state, and I got the impression from reading Herzl that he didn't care where it was, as long as it came into being...

Violet...

[pelsar]

45. violet.....

an interesting footnote about zionism...that it was basically a failure until WWII. It was only after the camps, and the jews btw were still in the DP camps for years after WWII ended, that gave the real boost to zionism. Even after all the 2,000 years of being kicked around Europe, treated as second class (europe and the arab countries at various times) nobody really wanted to go to palestine and "start from scratch." After WWII however, it was pretty obviouse that europe had gone "too far" and it was time to move on-hence "zionism" became successful.

as far as other peoples (aussies) going back to their origins, it would obviously make a real mess out of the worlds societies, perhaps the jews were a special case, or perhaps an example that its not practical....but then what is done is done, and we now have to live with it.

let me clarify something here:
If Palestinians embraced a total non-violence thing, the Israeli right would more than likely wage a campaign of intense provocation against them, claim that peaceful protests were indeed violent. I thought it was attacks on Israeli civilians that turned the moderate left off, not violence aimed at legitimate military targets.

yes your right, if the palestenians went non violent, the israeli right would try everything they had to provoke them, and the israeli left (majority) would wait and watch....and it would cost lives, as does any action here. Only if the palestenians succeeded in convincing us that it wasnt a sharade would the israeli moderate left join in. Are we cynical?....yes and no, were also very aware of the complexities of the arab culture and its communication within-its not western oriented, and words dont always mean what we think they do. (more on that later)....we would wait to see the actual actions in the field, wait till were convinced that its real (not all but most I suspect) And though it would have been easier when they were part of the economy, the power they have is that more than half of israel is rooting for them.....

Though it was the attacks on civilians that turned "us off", those kids and fathers in the army are also us, me, my neighbor. An attack on an army base, is not "kosher". That said, an attack on a settlement got less sympathy than others from the israeli public. The trick is to isolate the israeli right...and its not really hard to do.

our MKs be they jewish or arab have said more than enough disgusting things, but again its part of the democracy, and when a palestenian mk says something equally dumb, we usually dont get all excited-not that its acceptable but when its an individual its kept in proportion......what bugs us, mostly is whats written in the papers, videos, universities etc. The stuff that the "next generation" gets, or something said by a PM, president etc

[pelsar]

27. violet..an example

.. i just read where Al-Manar, the television channel run by Hizballah, broadcasting in France is now accusing Israel of spreading AIDS in the Arab world.(its not new however...)

first I dont understand why there is no UN outcry at that crap

is it just Rhetorical? I've just been acused of poisening about what 300 million people? and at least some are going to take that very seriously, and a few will attempt to do something about it

I dont really like the idea of all those people going for my head because of a false accusation, and since its hardly a fluke but quite mainstream, its pretty hard for me to "trust the world with my fate".

Now if the UN would start "critizing Hizballa for that, and france would ban them forever, and beligum would scream WTF!...well that might help reduce my anxiety level....

[ashiebr]

28. Israel is not threatened with destruction......

............from the Palestinians.

As for 1967, the Israeli were the first to fire. Even so, I believe that most of us around at that time supported what was then a progressive, liberal, social democratic state. That support has been wasted as the right-wing, extremist nutters have taken over.

Israel needs to take a good, long, hard look at itself, instead of peering through its net-curtains at others.

[pelsar]

29. ashiebr....

we do take constant looks at ourselves....which is why our govts dont last very long.....we dont have a single consistant look.

BTW if the world would like a more liberal oriented stable israeli govt without the religious nuts....i have a suggestion, and it doesnt play in to the hands of the religious or right extremists....my original one, but Hanna Ashrawi seems to agree with me:

you guys ought to really think about it....

Hannan Ashrawi, Saeb Erakat and others.....

1. Non-violent Resistance on a Mass Scale - Violence has failed as a political tool, but that doesn't mean other options are not available to the Palestinians to fight the occupation. If, a year ago, Palestinian women and children had begun carrying signs of protest and laying down in the street in front of Israeli soldiers and tanks, rather than throwing stones at them and sending car bombs into Israel, Palestine would be a state by now. And here's why: Peaceful movements "sell" in America and Europe (and to an extent, even in Israel). They play to the emotions, and that is not an improper use of emotion. Using emotion and not bombs in the cause of freedom is the way to "get their attention" in the West - and the most effective way to create a tidal wave of popular opinion in favor of statehood.

http://www.sacomm.com/palestinians.htm

or do you think you know better than them?

btw i guess you didnt know about our museum exhibit which show hebron from the soldiers point of view, our TV interviews that talk to both palestenians and israelis, our movies which deal the the palestenians and their lives under occupation, how about a investigations from the govt tv channel on the checkpoints.......guess you missed those things. I never could find anything similar on the palestenain side, have you?

[ashiebr]

35. And once again an Israeli supporter....

...manages to slander a whole nation for the sake of a few thugs:

"If, a year ago, Palestinian women and children had begun carrying signs of protest .......rather than ...... sending car bombs into Israel".

pel, you know as well as I do that: 1. It was Israeli Police who turned the Intifada deadly (Mitchell Report). 2. Hamas is the group responsible for most deadly actions. Hamas is a) opposed to the PLO, to Fatah and to the PA and b) was funded and supported by Israel at the beginning.

Peaceful movements may sell in Europe, but at the moment what sells in the US is the fiction that Israel is some poor country under constant bombardment from heavily-armed Palestinian militias.

And what a shame that Israelis can only validate themselves and their country by constant patronising comparisons with "the Palestinians". Get up off your knees.

[pelsar]

44. ashiebr.... the quote is from Hannan Ashrawi, Saeb Erakat and others.....

"If, a year ago, Palestinian women and children had begun carrying signs of protest .......rather than ...... sending car bombs into Israel".

so as I understand it, Ashrawi is , as you put it, slandering a whole nation"???



as far as the intifada II goes, it was planned.....but this is public knowledge.

In an interview with the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat (September 29, 2001), Marwan Barghouti, head of the Tanzim, admitted his critical role in igniting the October 2000 intifada in both the West Bank and Gaza, as well as among the Israeli Arabs:

"I knew that the end of September was the last period (of time) before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada...."

this we also knew, that intifada II was not spontanous as was Intifada I. (I used to watch the bloated palestenian "police forces" practice their attacks on "uphill targets (similar to settlements) during the camp david discussions.

You dont get it, let me help: Israel is neither poor, nor weak, and we no longer have to accept the concept of being a second class citizen, we no longer have to pay extra taxes because were jewish, wear a yellow jewish star, wonder if we can get into a certain club or not because we are jewish, read in the local paper how jews drink christian/arab blood, control the world etc etc etc. We dont feel sorry for ourselves, nor are we victims. We are the strong power in the area, and its a lot better being the strong power than the weak underling.

that said, if and when the combination of palestenian groups, european/US supporters accept that fact that we simply do not accept that fact that ANY entity (especially our neighbor) has the right to attempt to take away our basic civil rights to be accepted as equal human beings, than there will be a chance for peace. NO society has the right to demeanor me, write/preach/teach that I and my family are lesser human beings. This has been going on for way too long. The only difference this time is that we something to say and and do about it in our local environment.

the palestenians, those who support military action against us will eventually learn that the jew/israeli is not the same one of the past. Some learn faster than others. Ashrawi is one of them, I hope that soon many will join her.

whats a shame is that you, who are sitting in a safe place, seem to be urging others to be violent, you, who dont have to face the consequences of your beliefs.

and one more thing about societies: they and they alone are responsable for their actions, this is a basic aspect of any society/country. The palestenians are responsable for ALL of their components, be it Hamas, Fatah, PA, Islamic Jihad, etc, whether they can control them or not is something else, but they are responsable nevertheless. (as israel is responable for its settlers and their actions...)

[ashiebr]

47. And what a shame an Israeli once again.............

.........turns a discussion into a personal attack on anyone who dares to criticise Israel.

"whats a shame is that you, who are sitting in a safe place, seem to be urging others to be violent, you, who dont have to face the consequences of your beliefs".

Perhaps pel, you could quote back to me my urgings of others to be violent. Strangely I don't seem to remember posting any.

[drdon326]

48. **yawn***

some personal attack :eyes:.

Try again.

[ashiebr]

49. If you have problems paying attention Doc.....

...I recommend Ritalin.

However, back to Pel.

"as far as the intifada II goes, it was planned.....but this is public knowledge".

Pel, there seems to be no end to the wild claims made on this board. The independent Mitchell Report said:

"The asserts that the immediate catalyst for the violence was the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000 and the "widespread appreciation in the international community of Palestinian responsibility for the impasse." In this view, Palestinian violence was planned by the PA leadership, and was aimed at "provoking and incurring Palestinian casualties as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative."

The report continued:

"In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that...... the PA planned the uprising."

"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity;"

So no substance to your claim. You then go on about
"we no longer have to accept the concept of being a second class citizen, we no longer have to pay extra taxes because were jewish, wear a yellow jewish star, wonder if we can get into a certain club or not because we are jewish, read in the local paper how jews drink christian/arab blood, control the world etc etc etc. We dont feel sorry for ourselves, nor are we victims. We are the strong power in the area, and its a lot better being the strong power than the weak underling".

Well, I'll tell you what Pel, that sounds awfully like an inferiority complex manifesting itself. As I said before, get up off your knees. Surely you have something better to reference yourself with than the events of 60 years ago. But I thought this discussion was about Israel, not Jewishness.

[pelsar]

50. ashibar..

well you prefer the mitchel report...I prefer what the leader of the tanzim had to say about the start of intifada II and what I saw as the preperations for it while in the westbank, and what I received during a military briefing as to what to expect.....but we'll just have to let it go at that, wont we.

inferiority complex? you are confusing looking at ones history, and learning the lessons from it. Any discussion about israel involves the jews...in its most basic aspect you will find that the arab press doesnt differentiate, nor does the PA and its the character of the state of israel, so judiasm, its history from masada to the holocaust is part and parcel of israel.

why would quoting the leader of the tanzim as to the planning of intifada II be as you put it:

a wild claim

please explain as I am quite curious......

btw, it occured to me that by calling me an israeli propagandist (past posts), ridiculing my outlook on things (inferiority complex...) you seem to have no understanding of what motivates israeli society. But then I also wonder what you know of arab/islam/palestenian culture and society as well. Since the end of this war is based on two very different societies learning to get along with each other, I get the impression that you understand neither.....

ridiculing the values of a different culture is at best ethnocentric

[ashiebr]

51. "Since the end of this war is based on two very different societies......

....... learning to get along with each other, I get the impression that you understand neither....."

White South Africans used to say the same to me when I argued against Apartheid.

"Any discussion about israel involves the jews.."

Bull. If Israeli troops behave badly, it is because the IDF is badly behaved, not because they are Jews.

"why would quoting the leader of the tanzim as to the planning of intifada II be as you put it a wild claim"

I haven't seen the link if you gave one (could I have it please?). The Mitchell Report is a source of unbiased information. Anything else is wild speculation.

"ridiculing my outlook on things"

I did not. I ridiculed something on a thread entitled "What the Palestinians should do now", which in the space of one post conjured up images of the holocaust, Jews wearing yellow stars, Jews having to pay extra taxes, not being allowed into certain clubs...etc. Why didn't you throw in "blood-libel" for good measure....oh wait a minute...! Hyperbole is always ridiculous and usually unhelpful.

[pelsar]

52. ashibar..

you seem to be confusing issues here, as if your trying to make me write what you want to read, so you can refute easier....

What the IDF does, its does as the military arm of the israeli govt. And as most govt agencies have more than just jews within. This doesnt mean that the israeli govt and hence its miltary arm doesnt have a jewish character to it, they do. The armour soldiers swear an oath on massada, as do others at different geographical places that have signifcance to the jewish people. Hanuka is celebrated within the IDF as are all jewish holidays.The kitchens are all kosher, during passover many times combat rations are eaten....the army whether you like the idea or not, has a jewish character to it, but that has nothing to do with it actions per sea, nor did I ever claim it did.

i never claimed that what the IDF does is because they are jews-where did that come from?

as far as my "wild speculation"....these are statements from the PA govt officials:

Bargouti statement was in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat (September 29, 2001
(sorry they dont have an internet presence)
I knew that the end of September was the last period (of time) before the explosion, but when Sharon reached the al-Aqsa Mosque, this was the most appropriate moment for the outbreak of the intifada.


but there were others as well:Associated Press Mar. 4, 2001
Imad Falouji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, said at a rally in Lebanon on March 3, 2001, that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation."
http://members.tripod.com/arabterrorism/admission.html

want another one?
PA cabinet minister Ziyad Abu Ziyad was asked by the Lebanon 's ANN Television on April 19, 2001, "Does the PA have a tactical or strategic plan regarding the conduct of the conflict with Israel , or is the issue just a daily improvisation and response to Israeli activity?" He replied: "Had we not had a plan, we would not have endured so long. Whoever improvises becomes confused and loses his balance and his way. Our path is very clear ... Whoever follows the events can see that there is a clear Palestinian track. The events on the ground are neither spontaneous nor an improvisation."

so what in your mind makes them "wild speculation"....or perhaps you have some other terminology to refute them?

claiming that i have an inferiority complex after explaining what our "fears our' strikes me at minimum as disrespectful if not ridiculing....however as far as my "hyperbole goes:

Having Egyptian TV play a new version of the Elders of Zion, is not my being hyperbolic
Having Hamas TV in France claiming that we are distriputing aids throughout the arab world is not hyperbole
Saudi arabia repeating the wonderful lies in the newspapers that we drink human blood
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/4_04/as_sa.htm

all that dehumanization leads to the progroms of past, so perhaps to you its hyperbole, to us it very very very real, and we take it seriously, its present as well as past ramifications. And for those who ridicule what is important to us (by calling it hyperbole) cannot possibly understand what then motivates us.

as far as the S.African link you keep trying so hard to make, i dont believe that the whites of S.Africa has the history of what you call "hyperbole" that we do. And that is what you either dont understand, cant understand or simply dont want to.....

I just read part of the mitchel report:

We did not have the power to compel the testimony of witnesses or the production of documents. Most of the information we received came from the parties and, understandably, it largely tended to support their arguments...

That is NOT a report that claims any factual evidence quite the opposite they state very clearly that they do not have the means to determine what actually happened.

so why do you?

btw you called me "an israeli supporter"..that is fine, but I am also an israeli,

[ashiebr]

57. Well that takes us no further....

......... The fact is that we are discussing Israel/Palestine. You seem to wish to turn it into an exegisis of Jewish angst. If you had spent any time outside of Israel, surely you would recognise the fact that many Jews, while supprting solidly the principle of Israel, hate what is being done by that country in their name. So let us not confuse Israel and Jewishness. They aren't the same. So quit using 'us' meaning Jews when you really mean Israelis.

As for the quotes. In the absence of a link, I assume the Barghouti quote is from another web-site. There are many from which I can choose pro or anti Israeli quotes. But no first-hand link = no worth.

The second quote us exactly a case in point. It crops up on all the extremist sites, yet no-one ever admits that even if he did say that (which I doubt) it has been contradicted by virtually everybody else in the PA. Still, it fits the case, so clearly has to be highlighted.

Your third quote can be found on Israeliactivism.com as a fact sheet to be quoted exactly as you have done word for word.

As for the Mitchell report, I am gld you read it at last. Progress indeed. The part you quoted clearly supports the view that Israel was unable to produce one shred of evidence that the Intifada was planned. Much as you are unable to do so.

You will note that I no longer refer to you as a propagandist. I have apologised for using that word. But you seem to have a particularly one-sided view of things which can also be seen at some of the sites which are propagandist.

[pelsar]

59. ashiebr

jews and israel..first off I have spent many years outside of israel and am very aware of the complex relationship between jews and israel. Nevertheless I am both jewish and israeli, and whether some jews are comfortable with israel or not, doesnt take away from the fact that israel is jewish country...and more so, the arabs/palestenians dont seem to differntiate either.

intifada II..The mitchel report, I dont know how you misread what I wrote. They state very clearly that they have done no research whatsoever. They have simply taken info delivered to them by the palestenians and israelis and through their own discretion wrote up what they thought.

Can you show me how that constitutes proof on anything? That wouldnt hold up in first year law school.....

now since you dont like my past quotes...how about some empiricle evidence?

Intifada I spread like wild fire throughout the westbank and gaza within days, Intifada II did not.

it was in the beginning limited to the main cities of the westbank where the tanzim had much influence. I guess deaths of palestenians would be a good indication of this, this shows organization.

http://www.phrmg.org/aqsa/fatalities_list.htm

you will notice that in months after, the geographical placement of the deaths moved to gaza but in the beginning it was limited to the major westbank cities, it did not have the character of the first intifada, which in days was all over. More so, the rual areas of the west bank, very much involved in the first intifada, were noticably quite this whole time......

cant find info about the wounded...at least not yet..but the pattern probably follows.

[ashiebr]

60. "I have spent many years outside of israel ...

.............and am very aware of the complex relationship between jews and israel".

Excellent. Then please stop trying to be so simplistic about it. There is more to being Jewish than Israel and the Holocaust.

On the Intifada, you seem to misrepresent or misunderstand what I said. Mitchell was provided with no evidence by the Israelis that the Intifada was planned. Why was that? All they got was assertions..........so no change there then.

Incidentally Pel, do you not still owe me a reply about your accusation that I encourage violence? Your post 46 and my 47. The mods told me off (rightly) for making ad hominem attacks.

[pelsar]

62. ashiebr....

about being jewish...yes there is way more...but the overriding concerns for most of the jews is about israel and the holocaust/progroms....its our grandparents, uncles and aunts....thats not very far away, and when you throw in what we hear from the arab/muslim govts (indonesia ex pm) one gets the impression that nothing has really changed.

As far as the Mitchel report goes...the info was provide by both israeli and palestenains...what that raw info was i suspect neither you nor I am privy too. Given that they admit that both sides probably "tainted the material" makes the actual report in to a pure political document having absolutly no worth in terms of events on the ground.

Your use of a report that cant prove anything to "prove" something has no worth, its a false statement

as far as my emprical evidence that the violence in the beginning was limited to select areas and not spread throughout as was the case in Intifada I gives credability that it wasnt a spontanouse uprising but limited to areas of specific influence by the tanzim. However, I have since come to the conclusion, that like many things that has happend as much as it was "planned in its framework, most of the work was actually done by the PAs encouragment, once it got started. Meaning its initial reaction was planned, but not more than that, after that it was momentum and anger.....


as far a you encourage violence...indirectly. By rejecting the non violent method, there doesnt leave much room for imagination for the alternatives, now does it?

Your response to my and Ashrawis call to non voilence resistence:
peaceful movements may sell in Europe, but at the moment what sells in the US is the fiction that Israel is some poor country under constant bombardment from heavily-armed Palestinian militias.

I dunno sounds like a rejection to me....do you have another interperation?

[ashiebr]

63. "the overriding concerns for most of the jews is about israel....

... and the holocaust/progroms"

Pel, I'm sorry mate, but you are living in a dream world. Most Jews I know are ineterested in their daily lives, their jobs, commuting to work, their mortgages, voting in their own elections and the policies/politicians of their own countries. Israel is way, way down their list of things to consider. The Holocaust is remebered on those days it shoud be remembered. But unlike you seem to be, they are not defined by it.

The Mitchell Commission heard no persuasive evidence that the Intifafda was planned. I guess the Israelis hadn't manufactured the evidence at that time.

And if that's the best you can do in reponse to my challenge to show where I advocated violence, you might as well, as I have already suggested, quit while you're behind.

I look foward to continuing this when you come down to planet earth.

[pelsar]

64. ashiebr......instead of remarks...how about answers?

I noticed that instead of anwering many of the questions, you tend to make remarks....

when talking about the jews and israel i was refering to it in relation to israel and judaisim...thats what the conversation was about, thats how it got started and thats what my reference point was. And when talking about israel to jews, our past is ever present.

the mitchel commission, what is hard to understand...they admit that they information was tainted, they admit they did no research....what does that make their report for even a pre law student? in the world of facts, its makes it useless....your attempt at using a tainted piece of secondary information as "proof" is at best foolish.
Do you believe it would stand up in a court of law (try answering the question this time)


you should like this:
The Palestine National Authority has accepted the report of the Mitchell Commission on the causes of the Palestinian Intifada, calling the document ?balanced?.

However, the document is only ?balanced? because on most contentious issues it states the positions of both sides in ?balanced? fashion without taking sides.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/michaeljansen2.html

I dont really understand...if one rejects a non violent solution in a violent war...how is the conclusion that you are for violence mistaken? I dont know of any gray area here.

again try answering the question with a understanble answer and not with a remark which really doesnt mean anything......

I also noticed that you kind of skipped over the empericle evidence that showed the intifada II was initially limited to a few select westbank cities, which suggests that it wasnt "spontanous" as was intifada I. I realize your response will be "that proves nothing" and it dosesnt but it does suggest that unlike intifada I, it was organized (the mitchell report seem to deemed this bit of info "not worthy of mentioning...I guess for the usual poiltical reasons, give the character of the report).

this time...really try to keep with questions as opposed to simplistic remarks which really have no value......

[ashiebr]

65. I don't think you are in any position.............

.......to lecture me on not providing answers. You accused me of encouraging violence and have failed to substantiate it. That is not surprising since I did no such thing. I thought you might have had the decency to apologise. Instead you resort to rambling nonsense.

The Mitchell Commission tooki evidence from the Israelis and the Palestinians. It says:

"The asserts that the immediate catalyst for the violence was the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations on July 25, 2000 and the "widespread appreciation in the international community of Palestinian responsibility for the impasse." In this view, Palestinian violence was planned by the PA leadership, and was aimed at "provoking and incurring Palestinian casualties as a means of regaining the diplomatic initiative."

So that is what the Israelis asked the Mitchell Commission to believe. They continue:

"In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising."

"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force."

So the Israeli evidence "was not persuasive". That is diplomatic language for Israel having no evidence at all. As I said, quit while you're behind.

Would it stand up in a court of law? WTF knows. What I do know is that the Israeli evidence was dismissed as "not persuasive". So that clearly wouldn't stand up in any court anywhere in the world. And that's what rankles, IMHO. Someone actually being independent for a change.

I realise "balance" is unacceptable in Israel and the US - see the furore when John Kerry suggested a "balanced" approach to I/P. But to the rest of the world, a balanced approach is exactly what is needed, rather than the constant tilt towards Israel.

[pelsar]

66. ashiebr......just explain....thats all

You've rejected the idea of palestenians using non violence, or so I understood by your comments. If I am mistaken, then just explain it, we've got lots of space here:

I'll repeat the comment:

Your response to my and Ashrawis call to non voilence resistence:
peaceful movements may sell in Europe, but at the moment what sells in the US is the fiction that Israel is some poor country under constant bombardment from heavily-armed Palestinian militias

look i understand the conflict is not "black and white".....if my understanding that rejecting the non violent method means accepting the violent was wrong...that rather than making all kinds of remarks, simply explain to me what you meant?


the mitchell report:

ok let me get this straight:
a document that makes it very clear that it has received tainted materials from either side, and it uses those materials for its report and conclusion, is clearly a document with a political agenda.

that said, you are now taking a sentence, couched in diplomatic terms, taken from a document which was based on tainted political oriented information, and coming out with an historical fact?

did I get that right?

I dont know if you understood the link in the previous post, it was a pro palestenian article about how the mitchel report was politicalized with its attempt to be "balanced"-meaning they too were complaining about it politicalization and lack of "factual evidence"

and just to add some more info, the IDF was very prepared for intifada II, unlike I which was a surprise. So when mitchel reports that the IDF wasnt ready to respond with lethel force-they are wrong (I was in the reserves in July 2000 in the westbank-had a military briefing of what to expect....). But like I said and they admit...the report is pure diplomatic nonsense, nothing that that a historian, or someone interested in real facts can acutually use.

[ashiebr]

68. Actually it's you who needs to explain.

First of all, the quote you seem to think came from Ms Ashrawi, is actually from a firm of Communications Consultants - Stephen Abbott Communications. They were talking about the PR war, not the resistance. The PR war is lost in the US for the Palestinians. Nothing will change that now.

So I ask you again show me where I rejected a non-violent approach. The fact is that both sides have to cease the violence. That is part of the Road map. But it is immeasurably easier for Israel to do so. The government controls the IDF. The PA does not control Hamas.

On the Mitchell Report, you have got to be having a laugh! The Commission received its evidence from the Israelis and said it was not "credible". What part of that is so diffcult to understand? And as for it having a political agenda...well....as I said, anything which does not swallow the Israeli side hook, line and sinker, will always be accused of "having an agenda". The only agenda I see it having was to get to the truth and cut through the bull.

And we know the Israelis were ready to use lethal force. That is what Mitchell cites as one of the causes of the carnage - Israeli police using lethal force on Palestinian demonstrators. But hey, I guess that's just Mitchell being "Political" again, or even "having an agenda"

[pelsar]

71. Ashrawi-and non violence....

actually shes be calling for peaceful protests for quite sometime:
But Ashrawi, one of 70 prominent Palestinians who joined a public call for restraint and urged a peaceful uprising, said it would take time for popular support to grow

http://www.searchingjenin.com/wire.php?articleid=200405...

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/arti... (this caused an advertising war between hamas and the nonviolent advocates)

but its been rejected time and time again by the more militant groups....I am lost again, you seem to have a problem with this, or am I confused?...pretend I am just a little kid, as I am having trouble understanding your answers

Perhaps what your saying is both sides have to stop at the sametime? Both sides will not stop simultaneously as both sides have different agendas, thats not a realistic approach. From the israeli point of view everytime we have pulled back,out of the cities, be it jenin, tulkarim, Quaqilya we simply wait for the next suicide bomber to appear, and this has happened time and time again, so our lesson has been learned.

I dont believe you understand the non violence that the israeli public needs to see..and what the palestenains need to have. If they cant make their society non violent towards us, they will have the same problem internally as they have now, with gangs running their cities under the guies of "freedom fighters."

the sooner they adapt a nonviolent approach, teach it to their children, the sooner they will have israels help and the sooner their own society can be developed along the lines of a lawful society.

the societies are not equal, nothing ever is. Whereas our society is diverse with an large majority (polls) who have no problem with leaving the westbank and gaza, we simply cant have a state next to us that continues to attack us, we've been there before and see no reason to return to it, nor do we have to. The palestenains, according to the polls that I've read favor the continuation of suicide bombings by something like 80%.....thats not the kind of neighbor I'm willing to trust.

The present palestenian society is very violent both within and without, it is their responsability to do something about it, nobody but their own....(we'll skip the "israel did it to us syndrome" if you dont mind-as statehood requires responsability, not blaming someone else for your troubles).

and our little mitchel report...as i understand it, they've taken, tainted information from both sides and deemed one not credible. and your saying thats not a political decision?

and them saying the IDF wasnt ready? like I said, they were very ready. In fact if you check into the figures over 85% of the palestenians killed in Oct were above the age of 17, meaning even though the protests had a very mixed lot, those killed were intentional killed, a sign of a very prepared army.

http://www.phrmg.org/aqsa/fatalities_list.htm

quite the contrast to the unprepared IDF during the start of Intifada I

btw, everyone has an agenda in this conflict....no one lives in a vacuum over here.

[pelsar]

73. poor links

just noticed that the links didnt work:

look up in google: Ashrawi-and non violence

there are more than enough links to show her belief in the non violent approach....

[ashiebr]

69. Deleted

[Djinn]

24. yep they have to stop with violence

despite the fact that Palestinians have been suffering violence at Israeli hands since the Nakba - but Israeli can keep being violent because THEY'VE suffered violence - nice reality you live in.

What happens when Palestinians utilise non violence without the protection of Jewish citizens nearby - what happens when they';ve stood in front of bulldozers? Rabbi Arik Ascherman gets arrested, other people get run over of shot.

your belief that the palestenians must continue their armed struggle is probably one of the reasons this war has been going on for so long.

OK now I've stopped laughing...the Israeli Palestinian conflict is continuing because I don't beleive the Palestinians have the neccesary pre-conditions for non violent solutions to work...would it were I had so much power...

[pelsar]

26. ok djnn you got me curious....

I don't beleive the Palestinians have the neccesary pre-conditions for non violent solutions to work

what are those preconditions.......

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

34. A pox on both houses as far I'm concerned

plenty of blame to go around for the clusterfuck.

[drdon326]

41. hmmmmm......

:wtf:----->:wow:-----> :eyes:----->:crazy:---->:argh:---->:nuke:

[Forkboy]

46. That;s pretty neat

Too bad I have no clue what you're trying to say.

Alas,tis for the best.

[DemFromMem]

53. Once again, people here are more hardline than those they defend

To read this board you either seem to have to believe that the Palestinians have never made a mistake and can blame all of their misery on a bloodthirsty, militaristic Israel. Consequently, terrorism and violent resistance are natural and, while regretable, are to be excused and/or encouraged as a justified means to an end.

Or you believe that Israel's right to defend itself is without limits, Palestinians all secretly plan for the eventual destruction of the Jewish state, Palestinian previous rejections of peace mean that it no longer is necessary to push for peace, negotiating should never take place until there is a complete absence of violence (which makes one wonder how any wars were ever settled at a peace negotiation) and any territorial compromise will lead Israel down a slippery slope that will mean its demise. And, of course, settlers have every right to stay just where they are since the Palestinians have no more claim to the land than the Israelis.

I remember in 93 when Palestinian and Israeli peace negotiators took the most heat from their diaspora minyons who could not accept that the positions they spent years defending were suddenly being abandoned. But the people living in the line of fire on both sides have to live there and it's easy for those of us in more comfortable surroundings to tell our respective peoples to keep fighting.

Consider the headlines from just the last 24 hours:

1. Hamas May Accept Statehood in West Bank

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=9&u=/ap/20041204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians

Hamas dramatically shifts its rhetoric and is suggesting a truce and acceptance of a two-state solution


2. Peres says Labor should stay in gov't after Gaza pullout

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/509872.html

Sharon is bringing in the dovish Laborites into his coalition to counter hawkish rebel Likudniks and to hasten the pullout from Gaza. Sharon has also recently purged hardliner Likudniks from the Likud central committee thus giving him a freer hand pushing his disengagement agenda.


3. Syrian official: Damascus has no preconditions for talks

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/509873.html

A major policy shift from Syria that makes it possible to finally get that peace track moving again after four years. Jordan steps up to offer role as a mediator.


4. Mubarak: Sharon is Palestinians' best chance for peace

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=508549&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Shift toward legitimizing Sharon as a peace partner for the Palestinians (much like what occurred in the early 90s when Israelis had to be coaxed to negotiate with the demonized PLO).


And in the last few days, Sharon has indicated that the Israelis are prepared to cease operations in the territories in the head up to Palestinian elections. He's also suggested he's ready to resume talks with Abbas as soon as the Palestinians are ready. A far cry from the rhetoric of 2002.


Now all of this could lead to nothing and we may be back where we've been in just a few weeks or months. But how many people here are prepared to be supporters of peace rather than cynical supporters of the status quo? Face it folks - neither side is going to win at gunpoint or via the suicide bomb and you can waste a lot of energy condemning the other side or focus on supporting those willing to take risky political positions in the name of a better future.

Sadly, I suspect that we're going to see post after post on this board urging their sides not to yield an inch.

Now that I've said that, you can begin attacking me.

[pelsar]

54. demfromMem

what your saying is not wrong, its indicative of the constantly changing middle east..and constant subtrefuge. Can the Hamas be believed (Hizballa claimed all they wanted was israel out of lebanon....) Can sharon be believed, the guy who helped radicalized israeli settlement youth by sending them to hilltops?

but the actual topic of the discussion, was what can the palestenians do...that as far as I see it, relates to israeli reaction as well.

and the world in the middle east is not a black and white issue its a world of grays, with events happening that no one could possibly forsee, events that then cause other reactions.

however,I have yet to find a solid arguement here, what the palestenians would lose by going non violent, and having half of israel on their side......

If they dont, and there are negotiations, something which is good, it just means the suspicion from the israeli side will remain for a long time that its just a ruse. Actually the israelis will be looking at the retoric coming out of the palestenian press, the videos being played, the protest/rallies. Is the PA preparing its people to accept israel? Thats what will be going on behind the scenes...how will/do the palestenians report in their papers when a settlement our outpost is torn down?, Will they report that leaving Gaza was a result of good negotiation and an agreement, or will it be shown as a military victory?

beyond the mere retoric of the press, there remains a tremendous amount to do...that was one of the lessons of oslo...but its a good first step (again)

[DemFromMem]

58. Don't disagree but...

we need to ask ourselves whether we in the diaspora play a productive role in the process when we discourage our sides from taking risks for peace or simply encourage a continuation of the distrust. We're never going to get to the perfect place that each side's hardliiners demand PRIOR to an actual peace.

Fortunately, this reality seems to be better realized by those in the region than by many of us. And after four years, those in the region finally look exhausted enough to soften their positions. Arafat's death only exposes how tired everyone is and how desperate people are for an excuse to move off of long held positions.

[me b zola]

55. answer is simple, but simply not want Palestinians want to hear

Palestine should look within herself for her own answers instead of using scapegoats. Develop a responsible government that addresses its peoples social and economic needs. Develop a criminal justice system that holds its citizens accountable for violent crimes. If Palestine does these things they will acquire, OVER TIME, credibility with their non-arab neighbors and the rest of the non-arab world. Walls would no longer be needed to protect Israeli citizens from horrific acts of brutality.

The Kurds of southern Turkey, and northern Iraq & Iran should serve as an example. Political changes in the early 1900's changed their nomadic culture and forced them to settle. Although they have been abused by their Arab "cousins", they have been very successful in developing their own PEACEFUL communities and governments within the boarders of other nations who will not let them break away. Throughout all of the atrocities of Saddam's regime, their economy remained strong, and they remained self-reliant, and they remained PEACEFUL.

Palestinians could do the same, but is peace what they really want??

[drdon326]

56. Interesting post

Palestine should look within herself for her own answers instead of using scapegoats.

yeah........when? And when pa tv puts out filth calling jews "pigs and monkeys", they are off to a slow start.



Develop a criminal justice system that holds its citizens accountable for violent crimes.

And some people have no problem with the pa murdering some poor schmuck labeled a "collaborator" after a forced confession when hamas et al walk around scott-free.



but is peace what they really want??

I thought i believed that....now i strongly have my doubts.

[ashiebr]

61. "when pa tv puts out filth calling jews "pigs and monkeys"

Does it Doc? Or is this another post you'll have to delete like the one suggesting Palestinian school books contain pages with the slogan "Death to all Jews"?

[Liberal Classic]

70. They've been presented with a proper course of action...

By Arun Ghandi, Mahatma Ghandi's granson, during his visit in August.

I pray the Palestinians heed his advice, for their sake as well as that of the Israelis.

[Tuco Ramirez]

74. If they continue on their current path

isn't victory inevitable?

Nobody has ever explained to me any scenario (out of thousands possible) in which the Palestinians can lose.