Progressive Dems of America (PDA) Calls for an End to Israeli Occupation

[Karmadillo]

http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/israeli-occupation.php

Around the world, people are watching in fear and horror as the Middle East sinks further into violence. We are witnessing human rights violations and civilian deaths on a massive scale in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. And now, the conflict has escalated with added violence between the Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel. All of this comes on top of the chaos in Iraq caused by the unjust and ill-considered U.S. invasion and occupation.

Progressive Democrats of America asserts that any remedy to the escalating conflicts involving Israel and its neighbors must begin by addressing the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the consistent violence, humiliation and brutality the occupation entails. In the absence of this fundamental assertion, the violence will no doubt continue.

PDA proudly stands as the only premier Democratic Party organization that has the courage to make this demand. Even though lawmakers on both sides of the aisle privately question its logic, many Democrats are complicit in the failed American policy towards Israel and Palestine and the wisdom of America's overwhelming support for Israel's policies is not debated on Capitol Hill. It should be.

PDA joins our allies in the American peace movement who legitimately criticize the relationship between America's Mid-East misadventures and US military support for the Israeli occupation and Israeli settlement policies. PDA also supports the courageous voices of the Israeli, Palestinian, and American Jewish peace movements who have denounced violence on both sides. All are crying out - together with Palestinian victims of the current wave of violence - demanding an end to the systematic brutalization of Palestinians through checkpoints, land confiscation, settlement construction, and now bombing.

Now is the time for progressive Democrats to speak out in defense of Palestinian human rights; in defense, essentially, of American decency. Our elected leaders and newspapers must be reminded that Americans want our values reflected in a just and peace-pursuing foreign policy. PDA opposes the powerful and dangerous lobbies that distort US foreign policy in the Middle East, much as we condemn those Palestinians guilty of waging and supporting terrorist war against Israeli civilians. And while we condemn such terrorism, it remains our belief that the root cause of violence in Israel and Palestine is the Israeli occupation and intransigence, despite Israel's trumpeted withdrawal from Gaza.

more...

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Despite Israel's withdrawl from Gaza. Despite Israel's withdrawl from

Lebanon.

I agree that the occupation is untenable. I thought the peace process that culminated in 2000 -when we had someone capable, smart, decent and committed in the WH- was the best chance for lasting peace in the region. Unfortunately, it was not to be.

But here's a simple, straightforward question: Say they withdraw from ALL the occupied territories tomorrow, and on day one, rockets start firing from the West Bank at Tel Aviv, just like they immediately started coming out of Gaza when the IDF destroyed settlements and pulled out?

What are they supposed to do - what are they allowed to do- then?

[burythehatchet]

2. It just MAY be the case

that when people are allowed to live a normal and prosperous life, they will not tolerate those elements of society who would threaten their livelihood. Currently that is not the case.
To clarify - the citizenry only tolerates their radical elements because they have nothing to lose.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Could be. Which makes the failure of the 2000 peace accords all the more

tragic.

Yasser Arafat didn't do his people any favors by walking away from the table.

[Karmadillo]

4. Arafat walked away? Facts seem to suggest it was Barak who walked.

FAIR seems to be a fairly reliable organization. They provide an account that appears to contradict your assertion.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

Extra! July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman

<edit>

The Intifada began on September 29, 2000, when Israeli troops opened fire on unarmed Palestinian rock-throwers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, killing four and wounding over 200 (State Department human rights report for Israel, 2/01). Demonstrations spread throughout the territories. Barak and Arafat, having both staked their domestic reputations on their ability to win a negotiated peace from the other side, now felt politically threatened by the violence. In January 2001, they resumed formal negotiations at Taba, Egypt.

The Taba talks are one of the most significant and least remembered events of the "peace process." While so far in 2002 (1/1/02-5/31/02), Camp David has been mentioned in conjunction with Israel 35 times on broadcast network news shows, Taba has come up only four times--never on any of the nightly newscasts. In February 2002, Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz (2/14/02), published for the first time the text of the European Union's official notes of the Taba talks, which were confirmed in their essential points by negotiators from both sides.

"Anyone who reads the European Union account of the Taba talks," Ha'aretz noted in its introduction, "will find it hard to believe that only 13 months ago, Israel and the Palestinians were so close to a peace agreement." At Taba, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals--in other words, counteroffers--showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements.

In the end, however, all this proved too much for Israel's Labor prime minister. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations. "The pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," Ben-Ami said (New York Times, 7/26/01).

<edit>

In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02).

Ariel Sharon responded by declaring that "a return to the 1967 borders will destroy Israel" (New York Times, 5/4/02). In a commentary on the Arab plan, Ha'aretz's Bradley Burston (2/27/02) noted that the offer was "forcing Israel to confront peace terms it has quietly feared for decades."

end

[Warren DeMontague]

5. I'm not buyin'. Arafat insisted on a right of return. Not compensation,

return. Everyone knew that was a deal-breaker.

By the time the Saudi proposal came- at a time when the Saudis were trying awfully hard to put a "happy face" on some intense media scrutiny of their Kingdom- the peace process was already in flames. Sure, they weren't going to get as good a deal as they would have with Barak. Again, another painful lesson. If the Palestinians had been able to accept Israel's existence in '48, they would have had an even better deal.

But I reiterate my question- because as I said, I didn't think the occupation was tenable 10 years ago or 20 years ago.. and I still don't. Say Israel pulled back to the '67 borders tomorrow. And, like with Gaza, immediately rockets start flying out at their population centers. What are they supposed to do then?

[Karmadillo]

6. You appear to be a wealth of misinformation.

First you claim Arafat walked away from the negotiations, and then when that doesn't seem supported by the facts, you argue he was unreasonable regarding the right of return. This article suggests otherwise:

http://mondediplo.com/2001/09/01middleeastleader

<edit>

The Taba talks showed he was right. Both Nabil Shaath and Yossi Beilin, in charge of the refugees issue, have insisted that progress was made at Taba. The two sides affirmed that a just solution to the refugee problem in accordance with resolution 242 should lead to the implementation of resolution 194. They also made progress in formulating an analysis of the origins of the refugees’ problem. They put forward concrete solutions based on this. Five options were offered to the refugees: return to Israel, return to Israeli territories ceded by Israel to Palestine, return to the Palestinian state, settling in their place of residence (Jordan, Syria etc) or departure to another country (several states, including Canada, had made it known they were ready to accept significant numbers of Palestinians).

Though they insisted on free choice for the refugees, the Palestinians reiterated that they did not seek to change the Jewish character of Israel, which they had recognised at the time of the declaration of Palestinian independence at the Palestinian National Council (PNC) of 1988. As Yossi Sarid observes, the Palestinians admitted that "the final decision for return of any refugee to Israel is in Israeli hands". Israel agreed to the return of 40,000 refugees over five years - as well as those included as part of the policy of family reunification. The Palestinians replied that any offer under 100,000 would not give enough room for progress. According to Yasser Abed Rabbo, Palestinian minister for culture and information, the last remaining obstacle was determining the exact number.

The two sides also agreed that priority should be given to refugees from Lebanon whose situation was particularly difficult because of political discrimination by the Lebanese government. The Israeli document even specifies: "The State of Israel notes its moral commitment to the swift resolution of the plight of the refugee population of the Sabra and Shatila camps."

An international commission and fund were to be rapidly set up to compensate the refugees. Last of all, the two sides agreed that the question of compensation for Jews who had left Arab countries and settled in Israel was not part of bilateral discussions (12).

Too late
Why was it not possible to use this progress at Taba to create an agreement? Both sides knew that it had come too late: the Israeli elections took place on 6 February. "If they had been in May, we could have concluded in two or three weeks," claims Abed Rabbo. But Barak hesitated, equivocated, suspended the talks, started them again, demanded sovereignty over the whole of the Old City. Nabil Shaath recalls the "pressures by the Israeli government ’moralists’, led by Abraham Burg, who said the voters suspected Barak of sacrificing national interests to those of his government." A rout at the elections would have signified a repudiation of Taba. In addition, as Abed Rabbo explains, "we did not have time to draw up a treaty and what would the status of a simple statement have been? Such a document would have had no power of enforcement." The Palestinians would have had to "sell" their concessions to Palestinian public opinion without any concrete concessions from the other side, since Sharon would not have felt bound by a simple statement. The idea of a last-ditch summit between Arafat and Barak was considered but finally abandoned.

more...

Regarding your question, I think if Israel returned to the 1967 borders there would be no rockets.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. It would seem that Le Monde sees it differently than I do.

However- wouldn't it make sense, logical sense- for Hezbollah not to attack Israel from Lebanon after they pulled out of Lebanon? For Hamas not to start firing rockets the minute the Israelis pull out of Gaza?

How is that supposed to convince the Israelis that pulling out of anywhere is a way to stop the attacks on their people and territory?

[eallen]

9. That no more explains Hezbollah than it explains the religious right, here

It is time for rational folks to call out the role of religion in causing these kinds of conflicts, and to stop excusing it just because it is religion.

[Camp_Democracy]

8. K&R

[KoKo]

10. K&R

[Imperialism Inc.]

11. Hear Hear.

What would you do if you lived in small areas inside massive walls, disconnected from your brothers? You can't go outside the walls without being harassed by an occupying military. You have no resources because the occupying power has seized all of them for itself. You essentially live in a giant prison eerily and ironically reminiscent of the Nazi Jewish ghettos and also quite similar to South African apartheid.

There can be no peace until these injustices are remedied. It doesn't make the terrorist response right but we cannot rationally expect any other outcome to such injustice.

[mmonk]

12. Yep.

Removed from your homes into ghettos. Permits for new homes always on hold and years away. Ghettos shelled because someone acted up. Seems the Israeli government would have learned from history, especially the ghettos of Europe where they were put for so long.
Brutal treatment begets violence. Violence begets violence. And so the cycle keeps continuing.

[PA Democrat]

13. Israel is to this day, still building new and expanding existing

settlements in the West Bank.


Israel Building New West Bank Settlement
Israel Is Laying the Foundation for a New Settlement in West Bank, Breaking Promise to U.S.

MASKIOT, West Bank Jun 2, 2006 (AP)— Israel has begun laying the foundations for a new Jewish settlement deep in the West Bank breaking a promise to Washington while strengthening its hold on a stretch of desert it wants to keep as it draws its final borders.

The construction of Maskiot comes at a time when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seeks U.S. backing for eventually annexing parts of the West Bank as part of a plan to set Israel's eastern border with or without Palestinian consent.

The Palestinians and Israel's settlement watchdog group Peace Now say the Maskiot construction amounts to a new attempt to push Israel's future border deeper into the West Bank. "It's about grabbing land," said Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now.

Otniel Schneller, an Olmert adviser, confirmed Israel is building in additional West Bank areas to ensure they are not included in the lands given to the Palestinians. He said Israel needs to keep the Jordan Valley, where Maskiot is located, as a security buffer against Islamic militants based in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=203359...