Byrnzie, let me ask you a question, and here I am not trying to bait you, if the occupation were to end tomorrow do you think the Palestinians would be better off under Abbas or under Hamas?
I don't think that Palestinian administration under Fatah would serve any useful purpose. Though to be honest, I don't think it really matters. They could simply hold elections and decide for themselves. In the meantime, the borders of Israel could be fortified, with perhaps a U.N contingent in place, much like they have in Cyprus, separating the Turks and Greeks.
What do you mean that administration under Fatah wouldn't serve any useful purpose? Just that choice of government should be left to the Palestinians rather than there being an insistence on Fatah by third parties?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Okay, but then that brings us back to the my original question, i.e., since the only alternative to Fatah at the moment seems to be Hamas, which one do you think is the more desirable alternative all things being equal? Put another way, would you be comfortable with a Palestinian state ruled by Hamas?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
My point, just to make plain where I'm going with this, is that the current popularity of Hamas relative to Fatah is itself a function (to some extent) of the two parties' interactions with Israel. The failure of peace negotiations lessens Fatah's popularity relative to Hamas. But that doesn't speak to conditions in a future state.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
They've also been very illiberal, in line with their Islamist ideology. I'm surprised to hear you say that you don't care. Democracy is certainly to be encouraged but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, and given your constant insistence on liberal values with respect to Israel I would have thought that you'd expect no less in a Palestinian state.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
They've also been very illiberal, in line with their Islamist ideology. I'm surprised to hear you say that you don't care. Democracy is certainly to be encouraged but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion, and given your constant insistence on liberal values with respect to Israel I would have thought that you'd expect no less in a Palestinian state.
From what I understand, the Palestinians are not likely to become ultra-strict Muslims adhering to Sharia law. The militaristic/extremist tendencies of Hamas are an understandable reaction to occupation. I don't see any reason why that trend would continue under an eventual state of peace.
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
And we can all see what Zionism stands for. Come on yosi, wether u, I or Israel like it, the Palestinians chose Hamas as their choice of government. We all have to deal with it. Israel chose to have Zionist terrorist run their government for them and everybody is dealing with them. To say Israel's leaders aren't terrorist is a flat out lie. Perfect definition of terrorism. Let's not all forget one Ariel Sharon. Again to u and Israelis, Hamas are terrorist whereas in Palestine they are a freedom fighting government. Depends on who's eyes are looking. Burning a child alive, full blown TERRORISM! No fucken denying that. And I know you're not. I'll give you that. But in all honesty, these events of the past week are doing your country no good. For once, the people of the world are starting to see what these terrorist settlers truly are. To burn a child alive, wow, and here I thought only mad Arabs do shit like that, NOT young adults. Wow, youd think they'd know better. Not looking good for Israel, let's see how their powerful machine covers this up. Shit, they got away with Rachel corrie and that American film maker (sorry forgot his name). This shit is getting real REAL and not looking good.
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
And we can all see what Zionism stands for. Come on yosi, wether u, I or Israel like it, the Palestinians chose Hamas as their choice of government. We all have to deal with it. Israel chose to have Zionist terrorist run their government for them and everybody is dealing with them. To say Israel's leaders aren't terrorist is a flat out lie. Perfect definition of terrorism. Let's not all forget one Ariel Sharon. Again to u and Israelis, Hamas are terrorist whereas in Palestine they are a freedom fighting government. Depends on who's eyes are looking. Burning a child alive, full blown TERRORISM! No fucken denying that. And I know you're not. I'll give you that. But in all honesty, these events of the past week are doing your country no good. For once, the people of the world are starting to see what these terrorist settlers truly are. To burn a child alive, wow, and here I thought only mad Arabs do shit like that, NOT young adults. Wow, youd think they'd know better. Not looking good for Israel, let's see how their powerful machine covers this up. Shit, they got away with Rachel corrie and that American film maker (sorry forgot his name). This shit is getting real REAL and not looking good.
Can I just chip in and ask if I'm understanding the consensus here correctly?
There are supposedly terrorists within Palestine, and within the Hamas government. The laws produced here would be expected to govern the region if Palestinians were liberated and their demands were met. There are supposedly terrorists within Israel, and within the Israeli government. The laws produced here do (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently govern Israel, as well as Palestinian zones.
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
Who's asking for the Israeli's to be governed by Palestinian laws? Nobody is. What's being asked is that the Palestinians be allowed to live in their own state in accordance with international law, and the will of the whole of the international community.
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
What makes you think that information can only ever be biased? My information comes from many sources, such as the U.N, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Haaretz, B'Tselem, The BBC, The Guardian, e.t.c.
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
No, i didn't say that. But either way, I think it's irrelevant.
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
And we can all see what Zionism stands for. Come on yosi, wether u, I or Israel like it, the Palestinians chose Hamas as their choice of government. We all have to deal with it. Israel chose to have Zionist terrorist run their government for them and everybody is dealing with them. To say Israel's leaders aren't terrorist is a flat out lie. Perfect definition of terrorism. Let's not all forget one Ariel Sharon. Again to u and Israelis, Hamas are terrorist whereas in Palestine they are a freedom fighting government. Depends on who's eyes are looking. Burning a child alive, full blown TERRORISM! No fucken denying that. And I know you're not. I'll give you that. But in all honesty, these events of the past week are doing your country no good. For once, the people of the world are starting to see what these terrorist settlers truly are. To burn a child alive, wow, and here I thought only mad Arabs do shit like that, NOT young adults. Wow, youd think they'd know better. Not looking good for Israel, let's see how their powerful machine covers this up. Shit, they got away with Rachel corrie and that American film maker (sorry forgot his name). This shit is getting real REAL and not looking good.
A few responses. First, the Khdeir murder was absolutely evil. Thankfully it appears that the perpetrators have been arrested and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. From what I'm reading it seems that this murder has absolutely shocked the Israeli public, and many people are wondering whether this will be a watershed moment akin to the Rabin assassination. Here's hoping that some good can come out of this absolutely awful event.
As for Hamas, I never really got to my real point, so I guess I'll just lay it out there now. I absolutely see Hamas as an antisemitic, theocratic, reactionary terrorist organization and I think they're absolutely evil. Nothing can justify the intentional mass murder of innocent civilians. At the same time I recognize that they provide many valuable social services, and while I don't think it's justified, and is in fact reprehensible, I can understand why they are popular within Palestinian society (although my understanding is that their popularity has decreased significantly in the years since they assumed control of Gaza -- I may not be entirely up to date on that). I also am not suggesting that the democratic choices of the Palestinians not be respected (although it should also be said that those choices have their consequences).
My point in bringing up Hamas, and specifically what a Hamas controlled Palestinian state might look like, is to try to emphasize the importance of a negotiated peace rather than a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Many commentators have pointed out that the collapse of peace negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu weakens moderates within Palestinian society who advocate non-violence and a diplomatic solution. Each failure makes it seem that negotiations don't get results. Contrast this with the 1000 prisoners who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, which arguably sent the message that violence is effective. Similarly, the Israeli left's most common criticism of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was that it strengthened Hamas by reenforcing the notion that terrorism forced the evacuation. And by not negotiating the terms of the withdrawal with Abbas, Sharon lost (or wasted) an opportunity to give the "victory" for the Israeli disengagement to the moderate elements in Palestinian society.
Looking forward, a few things seem clear to me. The chances for peaceful coexistence between Israel and an independent Palestine will be significantly worse if Hamas (or another group like it) is the ruling power. A Hamas regime would also, from my perspective, be immeasurably worse for the Palestinians themselves. With Hamas in power the Palestinian state would almost certainly receive less international assistance. More importantly, the prospects would be much worse for a democratic state with free speech, a free press, and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, etc.
Now, as I said, I think that the democratic choices of the Palestinians should be respected. But we should remember that Palestinian society responds to the unfolding reality around them. If the occupation is ended by a negotiated peace it is much more likely that the resulting Palestinian state will be controlled by the moderates in Palestinian society, as they will be the ones to reap the rewards for ending the occupation. On the other hand, if the occupation abruptly ends through a unilateral withdrawal, as it did in Gaza, then I think it's much more likely that Hamas and their ilk will take the credit and assume control of the new state. Since I think both sides are better off avoiding this outcome it follows that efforts aimed at resolving the conflict should aim for a negotiated peace. That should be standard against which proposals are measured -- does this further a negotiated two state solution.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
And we can all see what Zionism stands for. Come on yosi, wether u, I or Israel like it, the Palestinians chose Hamas as their choice of government. We all have to deal with it. Israel chose to have Zionist terrorist run their government for them and everybody is dealing with them. To say Israel's leaders aren't terrorist is a flat out lie. Perfect definition of terrorism. Let's not all forget one Ariel Sharon. Again to u and Israelis, Hamas are terrorist whereas in Palestine they are a freedom fighting government. Depends on who's eyes are looking. Burning a child alive, full blown TERRORISM! No fucken denying that. And I know you're not. I'll give you that. But in all honesty, these events of the past week are doing your country no good. For once, the people of the world are starting to see what these terrorist settlers truly are. To burn a child alive, wow, and here I thought only mad Arabs do shit like that, NOT young adults. Wow, youd think they'd know better. Not looking good for Israel, let's see how their powerful machine covers this up. Shit, they got away with Rachel corrie and that American film maker (sorry forgot his name). This shit is getting real REAL and not looking good.
Can I just chip in and ask if I'm understanding the consensus here correctly?
There are supposedly terrorists within Palestine, and within the Hamas government. The laws produced here would be expected to govern the region if Palestinians were liberated and their demands were met. There are supposedly terrorists within Israel, and within the Israeli government. The laws produced here do (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently govern Israel, as well as Palestinian zones.
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
Thanks for jumping in. I always appreciate new voices in the conversation. I actually agree with you that it is almost impossible to find unbiased resources about the conflict. I think the straight news reporting from something like the NY Times is probably the closest you'll find (I know people on both sides will disagree, you don't need to tell me so). When it comes to finding unbiased analysis, good luck finding it. My preference is almost always to avoid using cut and paste sources. I'd prefer if everyone spoke for themselves and actually had a discussion rather than just exchanging the quoted opinions of other people. That's why I much prefer talking about the resolution of the conflict rather than the history of it, which invariably devolves into a blame game. When the discussion is forward-looking more people are prone to jump in with their own thoughts and there's less opportunity to get derailed by arguments over disputed facts that neither side will ever concede.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I don't think Hamas' ideology is indicative of most of Palestinian society, but I do think that Hamas is very serious about what they stand for. They are very much a part of the wider Islamist movement (or movements), and I think we can all agree that this is not an ideology that should be taken lightly. But just so I'm clear, you are of the belief that if the occupation ends all of the maladies of Palestinian society would end along with it?
No, i didn't say that. But either way, I think it's irrelevant.
I disagree. I think it's immensely relevant. As I try to explain in my longer post, the manner in which the conflict is resolved will likely play a significant role in shaping the nature of the future Palestinian state. I think that anyone who cares about the Palestinians should not just care about them as victims of Israel, but also should care about the conditions of the state that they will eventually build.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
Who's asking for the Israeli's to be governed by Palestinian laws? Nobody is. What's being asked is that the Palestinians be allowed to live in their own state in accordance with international law, and the will of the whole of the international community.
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
What makes you think that information can only ever be biased? My information comes from many sources, such as the U.N, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Haaretz, B'Tselem, The BBC, The Guardian, e.t.c.
So, the Palestinians have their own state and their own laws. First, where is this state? Surely you're against the uprooting of a nation (the Israelis, I mean), so where does the Palestinian state exist? I'm assuming the Palestinians would not want to have their independence and maintain their current land use? So in what location do you put the Palestinians?
Next, who governs? And will a government who just want peace and independence (which in itself is not a certainty) appease the people of a nation who has felt frustrated and abused for years?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for Hamas, I never really got to my real point, so I guess I'll just lay it out there now. I absolutely see Hamas as an antisemitic, theocratic, reactionary terrorist organization and I think they're absolutely evil. Nothing can justify the intentional mass murder of innocent civilians. At the same time I recognize that they provide many valuable social services, and while I don't think it's justified, and is in fact reprehensible, I can understand why they are popular within Palestinian society (although my understanding is that their popularity has decreased significantly in the years since they assumed control of Gaza -- I may not be entirely up to date on that). I also am not suggesting that the democratic choices of the Palestinians not be respected (although it should also be said that those choices have their consequences).
My point in bringing up Hamas, and specifically what a Hamas controlled Palestinian state might look like, is to try to emphasize the importance of a negotiated peace rather than a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Many commentators have pointed out that the collapse of peace negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu weakens moderates within Palestinian society who advocate non-violence and a diplomatic solution. Each failure makes it seem that negotiations don't get results. Contrast this with the 1000 prisoners who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, which arguably sent the message that violence is effective. Similarly, the Israeli left's most common criticism of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was that it strengthened Hamas by reenforcing the notion that terrorism forced the evacuation. And by not negotiating the terms of the withdrawal with Abbas, Sharon lost (or wasted) an opportunity to give the "victory" for the Israeli disengagement to the moderate elements in Palestinian society.
Looking forward, a few things seem clear to me. The chances for peaceful coexistence between Israel and an independent Palestine will be significantly worse if Hamas (or another group like it) is the ruling power. A Hamas regime would also, from my perspective, be immeasurably worse for the Palestinians themselves. With Hamas in power the Palestinian state would almost certainly receive less international assistance. More importantly, the prospects would be much worse for a democratic state with free speech, a free press, and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, etc.
Now, as I said, I think that the democratic choices of the Palestinians should be respected. But we should remember that Palestinian society responds to the unfolding reality around them. If the occupation is ended by a negotiated peace it is much more likely that the resulting Palestinian state will be controlled by the moderates in Palestinian society, as they will be the ones to reap the rewards for ending the occupation. On the other hand, if the occupation abruptly ends through a unilateral withdrawal, as it did in Gaza, then I think it's much more likely that Hamas and their ilk will take the credit and assume control of the new state. Since I think both sides are better off avoiding this outcome it follows that efforts aimed at resolving the conflict should aim for a negotiated peace. That should be standard against which proposals are measured -- does this further a negotiated two state solution.
Don't yo realize that the peace has already been negotiated? The terms of a peaceful settlement have already been established. The only purpose of all these further negotiations is for the Israeli leadership to try and seize even more of what doesn't belong to them, and which they have no right to. As for Gaza, let's not pretend it was any kind of magnanimous gesture, as it was nothing of the sort. As the Israeli leadership themselves have admitted, it was merely a smokescreen - a public relations exercise - behind which they could increase settlement expansion in the West bank. Gaza, meanwhile, was turned into a virtual prison.
And so what if Hamas gain power? That eventuality can be dealt with if and when it happens, but it has absolutely no bearing on Israel's obligations re: the occupation. None whatsoever. And the Israeli's really are in no position to talk preach about terrorism, or of respect for ethnic minorities, e.t.c. Israel is not the shining beacon of democracy that your post implies.
Finally, do you really believe that the so-called 'peace talks' are anything other than a sham? A stalling tactic to allow the Israeli leadership to steal more land? Are you still not convinced after 45 years of intransigence and settlement expansion?
So, the Palestinians have their own state and their own laws. First, where is this state? Surely you're against the uprooting of a nation (the Israelis, I mean), so where does the Palestinian state exist? I'm assuming the Palestinians would not want to have their independence and maintain their current land use? So in what location do you put the Palestinians?
Next, who governs? And will a government who just want peace and independence (which in itself is not a certainty) appease the people of a nation who has felt frustrated and abused for years?
Where is this state? This state is the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. What makes you think Israel needs to be uprooted? Israel is currently engaged in an illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It's settlements built on that occupied land that need to be uprooted. The settlements don't constitute Israel proper. The illegal settlers can move to Israel, or if they don't like that then they can move back to the U.S or Russia, or wherever else they came from.
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
Who's asking for the Israeli's to be governed by Palestinian laws? Nobody is. What's being asked is that the Palestinians be allowed to live in their own state in accordance with international law, and the will of the whole of the international community.
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
What makes you think that information can only ever be biased? My information comes from many sources, such as the U.N, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Haaretz, B'Tselem, The BBC, The Guardian, e.t.c.
So, the Palestinians have their own state and their own laws. First, where is this state? Surely you're against the uprooting of a nation (the Israelis, I mean), so where does the Palestinian state exist? I'm assuming the Palestinians would not want to have their independence and maintain their current land use? So in what location do you put the Palestinians?
Next, who governs? And will a government who just want peace and independence (which in itself is not a certainty) appease the people of a nation who has felt frustrated and abused for years?
Why do the Palestinians have to be the ones uprooted? Why can't they just stay where they're at? Amazing, it's ok for the Israelis (as a nation) to have np uprooting the Palestinians but god forbid asking them to STOP settler land grabs and settlements. And also Benj, I have a feeling you know more about this conflict.
Thanks for jumping in. I always appreciate new voices in the conversation. I actually agree with you that it is almost impossible to find unbiased resources about the conflict. I think the straight news reporting from something like the NY Times is probably the closest you'll find (I know people on both sides will disagree, you don't need to tell me so). When it comes to finding unbiased analysis, good luck finding it. My preference is almost always to avoid using cut and paste sources. I'd prefer if everyone spoke for themselves and actually had a discussion rather than just exchanging the quoted opinions of other people. That's why I much prefer talking about the resolution of the conflict rather than the history of it, which invariably devolves into a blame game. When the discussion is forward-looking more people are prone to jump in with their own thoughts and there's less opportunity to get derailed by arguments over disputed facts that neither side will ever concede.
benjs,
Yosi says that most sources are biased. What he means is that most sources are biased against Israel. I.e, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The U.N, B'tselem...these agencies are tasked with investigating human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories, and so of course Israeli's regard them as biased. Funny that he recommends you read the New York Times, which has a long and well-documented history of Pro-Israel bias. As for 'quoting opinions of other people', Yosi's simply deflecting attention from the facts of the issue, and pretending that the documentary record can be conveniently brushed under the carpet. It's perfectly understandable why he'd prefer instead to toss opinions back and forth. Inconvenient truths are inconvenient. I've backed up my arguments with quotes by Israeli leaders themselves, with investigative material drawn from all of the major human rights organizations, Israeli news organizations, Israeli human rights organizations, and the U.N documentary record. I've also quoted Jewish critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Neumann, and Norman Finkelsten. Lastly, he mentions 'disputed facts'. There's no such thing. A fact is a fact by merit of the truth it contains. (Yosi studied law. I studied Philosophy, so I know a thing or two about 'facts'). If you believe a statement or opinion to be false, then you can check it against the facts, against the historical record.
noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: "Your fears have no basis in fact." 2. something known to exist or to have happened: "Space travel is now a fact." 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: "Scientists gather facts about plant growth." 4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: "The facts given by the witness are highly questionable."
Again, it's clear why some people have a problem with facts, and would much rather toss opinions back and forth instead.
As for Hamas, I never really got to my real point, so I guess I'll just lay it out there now. I absolutely see Hamas as an antisemitic, theocratic, reactionary terrorist organization and I think they're absolutely evil. Nothing can justify the intentional mass murder of innocent civilians. At the same time I recognize that they provide many valuable social services, and while I don't think it's justified, and is in fact reprehensible, I can understand why they are popular within Palestinian society (although my understanding is that their popularity has decreased significantly in the years since they assumed control of Gaza -- I may not be entirely up to date on that). I also am not suggesting that the democratic choices of the Palestinians not be respected (although it should also be said that those choices have their consequences).
My point in bringing up Hamas, and specifically what a Hamas controlled Palestinian state might look like, is to try to emphasize the importance of a negotiated peace rather than a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Many commentators have pointed out that the collapse of peace negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu weakens moderates within Palestinian society who advocate non-violence and a diplomatic solution. Each failure makes it seem that negotiations don't get results. Contrast this with the 1000 prisoners who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, which arguably sent the message that violence is effective. Similarly, the Israeli left's most common criticism of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was that it strengthened Hamas by reenforcing the notion that terrorism forced the evacuation. And by not negotiating the terms of the withdrawal with Abbas, Sharon lost (or wasted) an opportunity to give the "victory" for the Israeli disengagement to the moderate elements in Palestinian society.
Looking forward, a few things seem clear to me. The chances for peaceful coexistence between Israel and an independent Palestine will be significantly worse if Hamas (or another group like it) is the ruling power. A Hamas regime would also, from my perspective, be immeasurably worse for the Palestinians themselves. With Hamas in power the Palestinian state would almost certainly receive less international assistance. More importantly, the prospects would be much worse for a democratic state with free speech, a free press, and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, etc.
Now, as I said, I think that the democratic choices of the Palestinians should be respected. But we should remember that Palestinian society responds to the unfolding reality around them. If the occupation is ended by a negotiated peace it is much more likely that the resulting Palestinian state will be controlled by the moderates in Palestinian society, as they will be the ones to reap the rewards for ending the occupation. On the other hand, if the occupation abruptly ends through a unilateral withdrawal, as it did in Gaza, then I think it's much more likely that Hamas and their ilk will take the credit and assume control of the new state. Since I think both sides are better off avoiding this outcome it follows that efforts aimed at resolving the conflict should aim for a negotiated peace. That should be standard against which proposals are measured -- does this further a negotiated two state solution.
Don't yo realize that the peace has already been negotiated? The terms of a peaceful settlement have already been established. The only purpose of all these further negotiations is for the Israeli leadership to try and seize even more of what doesn't belong to them, and which they have no right to. As for Gaza, let's not pretend it was any kind of magnanimous gesture, as it was nothing of the sort. As the Israeli leadership themselves have admitted, it was merely a smokescreen - a public relations exercise - behind which they could increase settlement expansion in the West bank. Gaza, meanwhile, was turned into a virtual prison.
And so what if Hamas gain power? That eventuality can be dealt with if and when it happens, but it has absolutely no bearing on Israel's obligations re: the occupation. None whatsoever. And the Israeli's really are in no position to talk preach about terrorism, or of respect for ethnic minorities, e.t.c. Israel is not the shining beacon of democracy that your post implies.
Finally, do you really believe that the so-called 'peace talks' are anything other than a sham? A stalling tactic to allow the Israeli leadership to steal more land? Are you still not convinced after 45 years of intransigence and settlement expansion?
There is a big difference between the terms having largely been negotiated and their actually being agreed upon. And that ignores the fact that even though most commentators agree on what the general shape of an eventual deal will look like there are still significant areas of disagreement. And really my point was that the manner of the resolution matters immensely. Most experts agree that in an eventual deal Israel will withdraw from almost all of the West Bank but will likely retain somewhere between 5 and 7 percent of the territory, compensating the Palestinians with land swaps from inside Israel proper. This will allow Israel to retain control over the majority of the settler population, who live just over the green line. Israel could obviously withdraw to these borders unilaterally, and while that would certainly make the situation significantly better for most Palestinians it wouldn't actually resolve the conflict. Or to take an even more fraught issue, what happens with the holy basin. Israel isn't going to unilaterally give up the temple mount and the Palestinians aren't going to unilaterally agree to relinquish their claim to it. Really the only viable solution to that issue is a negotiated one.
As for your Gaza comment, I don't know what you're responding to. I don't think I said, or even implied, that Israel was acting magnanimously when it withdrew. I was simply discussing the effect of the Israeli withdrawal, and more specifically the manner in which it was done, on internal Palestinian politics.
I also don't think I implied at any point in my post that Israel is a shining beacon of democracy. My point was that the manner in which the conflict is resolved will shape what comes after it. With respect to the possibility that Hamas could control a future Palestinian state I think it's incredibly irresponsible and actually somewhat callous to take the position that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. There are better and worse ways (for all parties concerned) for the conflict to end, and I think it should be uncontroversial that responsible people should pursue the better ways.
I think the current Israeli government is not serious about peace. I think the Israeli public is extremely nervous and mistrustful but ultimately supports a two state solution. And I think the only way this conflict actually gets resolved is to pressure Israel to abandon its harmful policies AND support Israel in pursuing more constructive policies.
Simply saying that the current government isn't serious about peace and lobbing invective (however justified it may be) doesn't do anyone any good. What's needed are constructive ideas that can shift Israeli public opinion, mobilize the silent majority in favor of a peace accord, and install policies that will actually lay the groundwork for a negotiated deal (I've offered a few ideas of my own a few pages back).
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
Who's asking for the Israeli's to be governed by Palestinian laws? Nobody is. What's being asked is that the Palestinians be allowed to live in their own state in accordance with international law, and the will of the whole of the international community.
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
What makes you think that information can only ever be biased? My information comes from many sources, such as the U.N, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Haaretz, B'Tselem, The BBC, The Guardian, e.t.c.
So, the Palestinians have their own state and their own laws. First, where is this state? Surely you're against the uprooting of a nation (the Israelis, I mean), so where does the Palestinian state exist? I'm assuming the Palestinians would not want to have their independence and maintain their current land use? So in what location do you put the Palestinians?
Next, who governs? And will a government who just want peace and independence (which in itself is not a certainty) appease the people of a nation who has felt frustrated and abused for years?
Why do the Palestinians have to be the ones uprooted? Why can't they just stay where they're at? Amazing, it's ok for the Israelis (as a nation) to have np uprooting the Palestinians but god forbid asking them to STOP settler land grabs and settlements. And also Benj, I have a feeling you know more about this conflict.
Sorry badbrains - guess I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that I assumed that the Palestinians would like to occupy the land currently referred to as Israel. In other words, taking over that land. Meaning the Israelis would be the ones to be uprooted. I think the Israelis having the Palestinians forced to leave their settlements would be beyond outrageous, but I think the same about the converse.
Also, I'll tell you exactly what I know about this conflict. -I'm Jewish by obligation: I was born into it, my spiritual views are closer aligned with Buddhism though. I do not believe in a god, nor do I believe in slaughter in a god's name; in fact, there's no place in the world that I've found myself less comfortable in than Jerusalem, merely because religion and conflict are so omnipresent. My family went on a hiking trip to Israel recently, and I opted out just because of how uncomfortable I am in the country - despite genuinely loving most of the people, culture, food, scenery, history. -I have made a point of avoiding political discussions. I try and learn when my friends discuss these sensitive topics, but my brain just isn't wired for history or politics, and based on what I know at this point, there's no way I could claim to have an educated opinion on this topic.
That being said, I'm here and reading and learning because it's another opinion set to gather information from.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There is a big difference between the terms having largely been negotiated and their actually being agreed upon. And that ignores the fact that even though most commentators agree on what the general shape of an eventual deal will look like there are still significant areas of disagreement. And really my point was that the manner of the resolution matters immensely. Most experts agree that in an eventual deal Israel will withdraw from almost all of the West Bank but will likely retain somewhere between 5 and 7 percent of the territory, compensating the Palestinians with land swaps from inside Israel proper.
But you know this has already been proposed, and Israel rejected it, right?
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-siegman/the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam '...the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League’s peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.'
You know about the Palestine Papers released by Wikileaks, right? They showed that the Palestinians practically offered the Israeli's the shirts off their backs, and the Israeli's still rejected their proposals.
Some more inconvenient facts:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession 'The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel's annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.
A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.
As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.
Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City – the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
...The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem – including Gilo, a focus of controversy after Israel gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes – has never been made public.
All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal "neighbourhoods". Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal – and came close to doing so at Camp David.
...But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma'ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".
Sorry badbrains - guess I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that I assumed that the Palestinians would like to occupy the land currently referred to as Israel. In other words, taking over that land. Meaning the Israelis would be the ones to be uprooted. I think the Israelis having the Palestinians forced to leave their settlements would be beyond outrageous, but I think the same about the converse.
The Palestinians aren't living in settlements.
Israel attacked Egypt and Syria in 1967, and in the process captured large parts of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. This land belongs to the Palestinians. The present conflict stems from this occupation, which the international community - despite the contrary opinion of some Israeli's, including a 'well respected professor' - regard as illegal. What the international community demands is that the Israeli's end the occupation, and the settlements it has built on the occupied land it seized. These settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a breach of humanitarian law under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, every year the U.N Security Council the U.S uses it's power of automatic to block a peaceful settlement.
That's it in a nutshell.
Read on if you wish:
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.”
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15 Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Anything to score political points and stoke the fires of anti-Arab racism. If any other political leader had done the same he'd be facing World-wide condemnation now. But because he's the leader of Israel, we hear not so much as a murmur:
Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy Max Blumenthal The Electronic Intifada 8 July 2014
“Cursed be he who says, ‘Avenge!‘ “ —Chaim Bialik, from “On The Slaughter”
From the moment three Israeli teens were reported missing last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s military-intelligence apparatus suppressed the flow of information to the general public. Through a toxic blend of propaganda, subterfuge and incitement, they inflamed a precarious situation, manipulating Israelis into supporting their agenda until they made an utterly avoidable nightmare inevitable.
Israeli police, intelligence officials and Netanyahu knew within hours of the kidnapping and murder of the three teens that they had been killed. And they knew who the prime suspects were less than a day after the kidnapping was reported.
Rather than reveal these details to the public, Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency imposed a gag order on the national media, barring news outlets from reporting that the teens had almost certainly been killed, and forbidding them from revealing the identities of their suspected killers. The Shin Bet even lied to the parents of the kidnapped teens, deceiving them into believing their sons were alive.
Instead of mounting a limited action to capture the suspected perpetrators and retrieve the teens’ bodies, Netanyahu staged an aggressive international public relations campaign, demanding sympathy and outrage from world leaders, who were also given the impression that the missing teens were still alive.
Meanwhile, Israel’s armed forces rampaged throughout the occupied West Bank and bombarded the Gaza Strip in a campaign of collective punishment deceptively marketed to Israelis and the world as a rescue mission.
Critical details that were known all along by Netanyahu and the military-intelligence apparatus were relayed to the Israeli public only after the abduction of more than 560 Palestinians, including at least 200 still held without charges; after the raiding of Palestinian universities and ransacking of countless homes; after six Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli forces; after American-trained Palestinian Authority police assisted Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinian youths in the center of Ramallah; after the alleged theft by Israeli troops of $3 million in US dollars; and after Israel’s international public relations extravaganza had run its course.
The assault on the West Bank arrived on the heels of the collapse of the US-led framework negotiations, for which the US blamed Netanyahu, and immediately after Hamas’ ratification of a unity deal with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu was still smarting from the US recognition of the unity government when news of the kidnapping reached him. Never one to miss an opportunity to undermine the Palestinians, he and his inner circle resolved to milk the kidnapping for maximum propaganda value.
Weeks after the incident, it is now clear that the Israeli government, intelligence services and army engaged in a cover-up to provide themselves with the political space they required for a military campaign that had little to do with rescuing any kidnapped teens.
The disinformation campaign they waged sent a heavily indoctrinated, comprehensively militarized population into a tribalistic frenzy, provoking a wave of high-level incitement, the shocking revenge killing of an innocent Palestinian teen and rioting across East Jerusalem.
Where the chaos will end and how far it will spread is unknown. But its origins are increasingly clear.
Pretty depressing to learn that this woman is 'a senior figure in the Habeyit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party that is part of Israel’s ruling coalition.' Also, it's pretty depressing to discover that her Facebook post is still open.
A day before Palestinian teenager Muhammad Abu Khudair was kidnapped and burned alive allegedly by six Israeli Jewish youths, Israeli lawmaker Ayelet Shaked published on Facebook a call for genocide of the Palestinians.
It is a call for genocide because it declares that “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy” and justifies its destruction, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure. It is a call for genocide because it calls for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes.” If Shaked’s post does not meet the legal definition of a call for genocide then nothing does.
Shaked is a senior figure in the Habeyit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party that is part of Israel’s ruling coalition.
Her post was shared more than one thousand times and received almost five thousand “Likes.”
Uri Elitzur, to whom she refers, and who died a few months ago, was leader of the settler movement and speechwriter and close advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Here’s a full translation of Shaked’s posting:
This is an article by the late Uri Elitzur, which was written 12 years ago, but remained unpublished. It is as relevant today as it was at the time.
The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.
And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.
And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.
Shocking words like this from Israeli leaders have an impact. And they are words backed by actions.
When Israel rampages against the entire Palestinian population, subjecting them to what Human Rights Watch calls “collective punishment,” it sends a clear message to the Israeli public that any Palestinian is fair game for “revenge.”
...I much prefer talking about the resolution of the conflict rather than the history of it, which invariably devolves into a blame game.
Except there will be no resolution of the conflict as long as one side chooses to either ignore the documentary record or manipulate and distort it for their own ends, which is exactly what's been happening since 1948 when the Israeli's began lying about the facts of the ethnic cleansing that took place before, during, and after that war. And their multi-million $$ propaganda machine has been highly successful in shaping discussion of this issue. I doubt that in the history of the World has there ever been a more concerted effort to fudge the truth, spin half-truths, obfuscations, and outright lies, in the effort to try and excuse and justify such an obvious injustice.
And I know that you'd prefer not to discuss the history of this issue, and that you find the facts biased - i.e, inconvenient, but there will be no progress until the lies cease, and some honest reckoning and responsibility begins. How can there conceivably be any resolution to this conflict when the Israeli's continue portraying themselves as the victims, and whilst the past is whitewashed, and international law is derided, and otherwise dismissed?
Comments
But Hamas have done a lot of good for the people of Gaza, and have been relatively successful in reigning in the more extremist factions.
There are supposedly terrorists within Palestine, and within the Hamas government. The laws produced here would be expected to govern the region if Palestinians were liberated and their demands were met.
There are supposedly terrorists within Israel, and within the Israeli government. The laws produced here do (please correct me if I'm wrong) currently govern Israel, as well as Palestinian zones.
Terrorism is terrorism - why do we waste time rating wrong actions from one to ten? How could the Israelis - who witness things like significant drops in terror attacks when they build a fence around the perimeter of Palestinian zones - be expected to say "we will take down our barriers, and welcome your laws to govern ours"? How could the Palestinians - whose youth are being burned by Israelis - be expected to do anything similar?
And how can we, as outsiders from the situation whose information can realistically only be coming from biased sources, gauge which side is correct? Do we have the right? I seriously wish that someone could help shed some light on this situation. Yosi and Byrnzie, with all due respect, you degrade your opinions when you waste time attacking the credibility of each other. If you've got an issue with someone's source - the onus is on them to find another. If your opinion is only backed up by one expert, or one particular aggregation of opinions (ie. one site), honestly, it's worth next to nothing.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
My information comes from many sources, such as the U.N, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Haaretz, B'Tselem, The BBC, The Guardian, e.t.c.
As for Hamas, I never really got to my real point, so I guess I'll just lay it out there now. I absolutely see Hamas as an antisemitic, theocratic, reactionary terrorist organization and I think they're absolutely evil. Nothing can justify the intentional mass murder of innocent civilians. At the same time I recognize that they provide many valuable social services, and while I don't think it's justified, and is in fact reprehensible, I can understand why they are popular within Palestinian society (although my understanding is that their popularity has decreased significantly in the years since they assumed control of Gaza -- I may not be entirely up to date on that). I also am not suggesting that the democratic choices of the Palestinians not be respected (although it should also be said that those choices have their consequences).
My point in bringing up Hamas, and specifically what a Hamas controlled Palestinian state might look like, is to try to emphasize the importance of a negotiated peace rather than a unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Many commentators have pointed out that the collapse of peace negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu weakens moderates within Palestinian society who advocate non-violence and a diplomatic solution. Each failure makes it seem that negotiations don't get results. Contrast this with the 1000 prisoners who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, which arguably sent the message that violence is effective. Similarly, the Israeli left's most common criticism of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was that it strengthened Hamas by reenforcing the notion that terrorism forced the evacuation. And by not negotiating the terms of the withdrawal with Abbas, Sharon lost (or wasted) an opportunity to give the "victory" for the Israeli disengagement to the moderate elements in Palestinian society.
Looking forward, a few things seem clear to me. The chances for peaceful coexistence between Israel and an independent Palestine will be significantly worse if Hamas (or another group like it) is the ruling power. A Hamas regime would also, from my perspective, be immeasurably worse for the Palestinians themselves. With Hamas in power the Palestinian state would almost certainly receive less international assistance. More importantly, the prospects would be much worse for a democratic state with free speech, a free press, and equal rights for religious and ethnic minorities, women, homosexuals, etc.
Now, as I said, I think that the democratic choices of the Palestinians should be respected. But we should remember that Palestinian society responds to the unfolding reality around them. If the occupation is ended by a negotiated peace it is much more likely that the resulting Palestinian state will be controlled by the moderates in Palestinian society, as they will be the ones to reap the rewards for ending the occupation. On the other hand, if the occupation abruptly ends through a unilateral withdrawal, as it did in Gaza, then I think it's much more likely that Hamas and their ilk will take the credit and assume control of the new state. Since I think both sides are better off avoiding this outcome it follows that efforts aimed at resolving the conflict should aim for a negotiated peace. That should be standard against which proposals are measured -- does this further a negotiated two state solution.
Next, who governs? And will a government who just want peace and independence (which in itself is not a certainty) appease the people of a nation who has felt frustrated and abused for years?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for Gaza, let's not pretend it was any kind of magnanimous gesture, as it was nothing of the sort. As the Israeli leadership themselves have admitted, it was merely a smokescreen - a public relations exercise - behind which they could increase settlement expansion in the West bank. Gaza, meanwhile, was turned into a virtual prison.
And so what if Hamas gain power? That eventuality can be dealt with if and when it happens, but it has absolutely no bearing on Israel's obligations re: the occupation. None whatsoever. And the Israeli's really are in no position to talk preach about terrorism, or of respect for ethnic minorities, e.t.c. Israel is not the shining beacon of democracy that your post implies.
Finally, do you really believe that the so-called 'peace talks' are anything other than a sham? A stalling tactic to allow the Israeli leadership to steal more land? Are you still not convinced after 45 years of intransigence and settlement expansion?
Yosi says that most sources are biased. What he means is that most sources are biased against Israel. I.e, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, The U.N, B'tselem...these agencies are tasked with investigating human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories, and so of course Israeli's regard them as biased. Funny that he recommends you read the New York Times, which has a long and well-documented history of Pro-Israel bias.
As for 'quoting opinions of other people', Yosi's simply deflecting attention from the facts of the issue, and pretending that the documentary record can be conveniently brushed under the carpet. It's perfectly understandable why he'd prefer instead to toss opinions back and forth. Inconvenient truths are inconvenient. I've backed up my arguments with quotes by Israeli leaders themselves, with investigative material drawn from all of the major human rights organizations, Israeli news organizations, Israeli human rights organizations, and the U.N documentary record. I've also quoted Jewish critics of Israel, such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Neumann, and Norman Finkelsten.
Lastly, he mentions 'disputed facts'. There's no such thing.
A fact is a fact by merit of the truth it contains. (Yosi studied law. I studied Philosophy, so I know a thing or two about 'facts'). If you believe a statement or opinion to be false, then you can check it against the facts, against the historical record.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact?s=t
Fact
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth:
"Your fears have no basis in fact."
2.
something known to exist or to have happened:
"Space travel is now a fact."
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
"Scientists gather facts about plant growth."
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
"The facts given by the witness are highly questionable."
Again, it's clear why some people have a problem with facts, and would much rather toss opinions back and forth instead.
As for your Gaza comment, I don't know what you're responding to. I don't think I said, or even implied, that Israel was acting magnanimously when it withdrew. I was simply discussing the effect of the Israeli withdrawal, and more specifically the manner in which it was done, on internal Palestinian politics.
I also don't think I implied at any point in my post that Israel is a shining beacon of democracy. My point was that the manner in which the conflict is resolved will shape what comes after it. With respect to the possibility that Hamas could control a future Palestinian state I think it's incredibly irresponsible and actually somewhat callous to take the position that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. There are better and worse ways (for all parties concerned) for the conflict to end, and I think it should be uncontroversial that responsible people should pursue the better ways.
I think the current Israeli government is not serious about peace. I think the Israeli public is extremely nervous and mistrustful but ultimately supports a two state solution. And I think the only way this conflict actually gets resolved is to pressure Israel to abandon its harmful policies AND support Israel in pursuing more constructive policies.
Simply saying that the current government isn't serious about peace and lobbing invective (however justified it may be) doesn't do anyone any good. What's needed are constructive ideas that can shift Israeli public opinion, mobilize the silent majority in favor of a peace accord, and install policies that will actually lay the groundwork for a negotiated deal (I've offered a few ideas of my own a few pages back).
Also, I'll tell you exactly what I know about this conflict.
-I'm Jewish by obligation: I was born into it, my spiritual views are closer aligned with Buddhism though. I do not believe in a god, nor do I believe in slaughter in a god's name; in fact, there's no place in the world that I've found myself less comfortable in than Jerusalem, merely because religion and conflict are so omnipresent. My family went on a hiking trip to Israel recently, and I opted out just because of how uncomfortable I am in the country - despite genuinely loving most of the people, culture, food, scenery, history.
-I have made a point of avoiding political discussions. I try and learn when my friends discuss these sensitive topics, but my brain just isn't wired for history or politics, and based on what I know at this point, there's no way I could claim to have an educated opinion on this topic.
That being said, I'm here and reading and learning because it's another opinion set to gather information from.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-siegman/the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam
'...the Palestinians made much the most far-reaching compromise of all when the PLO formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949 armistice border. With that concession, Palestinians ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants. They have never received any credit for this wrenching concession, made years before Israel agreed that Palestinians had a right to statehood in any part of Palestine. The notion that further border adjustments should be made at the expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that remains to the Palestinians is deeply offensive to them, and understandably so.
Nevertheless, the Palestinians agreed at the Camp David summit to adjustments to the pre-1967 border that would allow large numbers of West Bank settlers – about 70 per cent – to remain within the Jewish state, provided they received comparable territory on Israel’s side of the border. Barak rejected this. To be sure, in the past the Palestinian demand of a right of return was a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab League’s peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that Arab countries will accept a nominal and symbolic return of refugees into Israel in numbers approved by Israel, with the overwhelming majority repatriated in the new Palestinian state, their countries of residence, or in other countries prepared to receive them.'
You know about the Palestine Papers released by Wikileaks, right? They showed that the Palestinians practically offered the Israeli's the shirts off their backs, and the Israeli's still rejected their proposals.
Some more inconvenient facts:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/23/palestine-papers-expose-peace-concession
'The biggest leak of confidential documents in the history of the Middle East conflict has revealed that Palestinian negotiators secretly agreed to accept Israel's annexation of all but one of the settlements built illegally in occupied East Jerusalem. This unprecedented proposal was one of a string of concessions that will cause shockwaves among Palestinians and in the wider Arab world.
A cache of thousands of pages of confidential Palestinian records covering more than a decade of negotiations with Israel and the US has been obtained by al-Jazeera TV and shared exclusively with the Guardian. The papers provide an extraordinary and vivid insight into the disintegration of the 20-year peace process, which is now regarded as all but dead.
As well as the annexation of all East Jerusalem settlements except Har Homa, the Palestine papers show PLO leaders privately suggested swapping part of the flashpoint East Jerusalem Arab neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah for land elsewhere.
Most controversially, they also proposed a joint committee to take over the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount holy sites in Jerusalem's Old City – the neuralgic issue that helped sink the Camp David talks in 2000 after Yasser Arafat refused to concede sovereignty around the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques.
...The concession in May 2008 by Palestinian leaders to allow Israel to annex the settlements in East Jerusalem – including Gilo, a focus of controversy after Israel gave the go-ahead for 1,400 new homes – has never been made public.
All settlements built on territory occupied by Israel in the 1967 war are illegal under international law, but the Jerusalem homes are routinely described, and perceived, by Israel as municipal "neighbourhoods". Israeli governments have consistently sought to annex the largest settlements as part of a peace deal – and came close to doing so at Camp David.
...But the offer was rejected out of hand by Israel because it did not include a big settlement near the city Ma'ale Adumim as well as Har Homa and several others deeper in the West Bank, including Ariel. "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands," Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, "and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it".
Israel attacked Egypt and Syria in 1967, and in the process captured large parts of the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. This land belongs to the Palestinians. The present conflict stems from this occupation, which the international community - despite the contrary opinion of some Israeli's, including a 'well respected professor' - regard as illegal.
What the international community demands is that the Israeli's end the occupation, and the settlements it has built on the occupied land it seized. These settlements are illegal under international law and constitute a breach of humanitarian law under article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, every year the U.N Security Council the U.S uses it's power of automatic to block a peaceful settlement.
That's it in a nutshell.
Read on if you wish:
The United Nations General Assembly annually votes on a resolution titled, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.” This resolution uniformly includes these tenets for “achieving a peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”: (1) “Affirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”; (2) “Affirming also the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the territory occupied since 1967 and of Israeli actions aimed at changing the status of Jerusalem”; (3) “Stresses the need for: (a) The realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination; (b) The withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”; (4) “Also stresses the need for resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with its resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948.”
2013:
https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/ga11460.doc.htm
Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine - A/RES/68/15
Vote: 165 Yes, 6 against (Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States) with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, South Sudan, Tonga)
So we have 165 countries on one side calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict under the terms of U.N Resolution 242, and 6 countries - including Israel and the U.S - on the other, opposing a peaceful settlement, and lending their support for the ongoing hostilities, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/netanyahu-government-knew-teens-were-dead-it-whipped-racist-frenzy/13533
Netanyahu government knew teens were dead as it whipped up racist frenzy
Max Blumenthal
The Electronic Intifada
8 July 2014
“Cursed be he who says, ‘Avenge!‘ “
—Chaim Bialik, from “On The Slaughter”
From the moment three Israeli teens were reported missing last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s military-intelligence apparatus suppressed the flow of information to the general public. Through a toxic blend of propaganda, subterfuge and incitement, they inflamed a precarious situation, manipulating Israelis into supporting their agenda until they made an utterly avoidable nightmare inevitable.
Israeli police, intelligence officials and Netanyahu knew within hours of the kidnapping and murder of the three teens that they had been killed. And they knew who the prime suspects were less than a day after the kidnapping was reported.
Rather than reveal these details to the public, Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency imposed a gag order on the national media, barring news outlets from reporting that the teens had almost certainly been killed, and forbidding them from revealing the identities of their suspected killers. The Shin Bet even lied to the parents of the kidnapped teens, deceiving them into believing their sons were alive.
Instead of mounting a limited action to capture the suspected perpetrators and retrieve the teens’ bodies, Netanyahu staged an aggressive international public relations campaign, demanding sympathy and outrage from world leaders, who were also given the impression that the missing teens were still alive.
Meanwhile, Israel’s armed forces rampaged throughout the occupied West Bank and bombarded the Gaza Strip in a campaign of collective punishment deceptively marketed to Israelis and the world as a rescue mission.
Critical details that were known all along by Netanyahu and the military-intelligence apparatus were relayed to the Israeli public only after the abduction of more than 560 Palestinians, including at least 200 still held without charges; after the raiding of Palestinian universities and ransacking of countless homes; after six Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli forces; after American-trained Palestinian Authority police assisted Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinian youths in the center of Ramallah; after the alleged theft by Israeli troops of $3 million in US dollars; and after Israel’s international public relations extravaganza had run its course.
The assault on the West Bank arrived on the heels of the collapse of the US-led framework negotiations, for which the US blamed Netanyahu, and immediately after Hamas’ ratification of a unity deal with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu was still smarting from the US recognition of the unity government when news of the kidnapping reached him. Never one to miss an opportunity to undermine the Palestinians, he and his inner circle resolved to milk the kidnapping for maximum propaganda value.
Weeks after the incident, it is now clear that the Israeli government, intelligence services and army engaged in a cover-up to provide themselves with the political space they required for a military campaign that had little to do with rescuing any kidnapped teens.
The disinformation campaign they waged sent a heavily indoctrinated, comprehensively militarized population into a tribalistic frenzy, provoking a wave of high-level incitement, the shocking revenge killing of an innocent Palestinian teen and rioting across East Jerusalem.
Where the chaos will end and how far it will spread is unknown. But its origins are increasingly clear.
....
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-lawmakers-call-genocide-palestinians-gets-thousands-facebook-likes
Israeli lawmaker’s call for genocide of Palestinians gets thousands of Facebook likes
Electronic Intifada 07/07/2014
A day before Palestinian teenager Muhammad Abu Khudair was kidnapped and burned alive allegedly by six Israeli Jewish youths, Israeli lawmaker Ayelet Shaked published on Facebook a call for genocide of the Palestinians.
It is a call for genocide because it declares that “the entire Palestinian people is the enemy” and justifies its destruction, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure. It is a call for genocide because it calls for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers who give birth to “little snakes.”
If Shaked’s post does not meet the legal definition of a call for genocide then nothing does.
Shaked is a senior figure in the Habeyit Hayehudi (Jewish Home) party that is part of Israel’s ruling coalition.
Her post was shared more than one thousand times and received almost five thousand “Likes.”
Uri Elitzur, to whom she refers, and who died a few months ago, was leader of the settler movement and speechwriter and close advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Here’s a full translation of Shaked’s posting:
This is an article by the late Uri Elitzur, which was written 12 years ago, but remained unpublished. It is as relevant today as it was at the time.
The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.
And the morality of war knows that it is not possible to refrain from hurting enemy civilians. It does not condemn the British air force, which bombed and totally destroyed the German city of Dresden, or the US planes that destroyed the cities of Poland and wrecked half of Budapest, places whose wretched residents had never done a thing to America, but which had to be destroyed in order to win the war against evil. The morals of war do not require that Russia be brought to trial, though it bombs and destroys towns and neighborhoods in Chechnya. It does not denounce the UN Peacekeeping Forces for killing hundreds of civilians in Angola, nor the NATO forces who bombed Milosevic’s Belgrade, a city with a million civilians, elderly, babies, women, and children. The morals of war accept as correct in principle, not only politically, what America has done in Afghanistan, including the massive bombing of populated places, including the creation of a refugee stream of hundreds of thousands of people who escaped the horrors of war, for thousands of whom there is no home to return to.
And in our war this is sevenfold more correct, because the enemy soldiers hide out among the population, and it is only through its support that they can fight. Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.
Shocking words like this from Israeli leaders have an impact. And they are words backed by actions.
When Israel rampages against the entire Palestinian population, subjecting them to what Human Rights Watch calls “collective punishment,” it sends a clear message to the Israeli public that any Palestinian is fair game for “revenge.”
Shaked evidently has much worse in mind.
And I know that you'd prefer not to discuss the history of this issue, and that you find the facts biased - i.e, inconvenient, but there will be no progress until the lies cease, and some honest reckoning and responsibility begins. How can there conceivably be any resolution to this conflict when the Israeli's continue portraying themselves as the victims, and whilst the past is whitewashed, and international law is derided, and otherwise dismissed?