As a new round of violence kicks off in Israel-Palestine and more children are killed, it's not enough just to call for another ceasefire. It’s time to take definitive non-violent action to end this decades long nightmare.
Our governments have failed -- while they have talked peace and passed UN resolutions, they and our companies have continued to aid, trade and invest in the violence. The only way to stop this hellish cycle of Israel confiscating Palestinian lands, daily collective punishment of innocent Palestinian families, Hamas firing rockets, and Israel bombing Gaza is to make the economic cost of this conflict too high to bear.
We know it works -- when EU countries issued guidelines not to fund the illegal Israeli settlements it caused an earthquake in the cabinet, and when citizens successfully persuaded a Dutch pension fund, PGGM, to withdraw, it created a political storm.
This may not feel like a direct way to stop the current killing, but history tells us that raising the financial cost of oppression can pave a path to peace. Sign the petition on the right and call on 6 key banks, pension funds and businesses to pull out -- If we all take smart action now and turn up the heat, they could withdraw, the Israeli economy will take a hit, and we can turn the calculation of the extremists politically profiting from this hell upside down.
In the last six weeks three Israeli teenagers were murdered in the West Bank, a Palestinian boy was burnt alive, an American kid was brutally beaten up by Israeli police, and now almost 100 Gazan kids have died in Israeli air strikes. This is not the "Middle East conflict", it's becoming a war on children. And we are becoming numb to this global shame.
The media makes out like this is an intractable conflict between two equal warring parties, but it is not. Palestinian extremists' attacks on innocent civilians are never justified and Hamas’ anti-semitism is disgusting. But these extremists claim legitimacy by fighting the grotesque, decades-long oppression by the Israeli state. Israel currently occupies, colonises, bombs, raids, and controls the water, trade and the borders of a legally free nation that has been recognised by the United Nations. In Gaza, Israel has created the largest open-air prison in the world, and then blockaded it. Now as bombs fall, the families literally have no way to get out.
These are war crimes and we wouldn't accept that anywhere else: why accept it in Palestine? Half a century ago Israel and its Arab neighbours went to war and Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Occupying territory after war happens all the time. But no military occupation should turn into a decades-long tyranny which only fuels and benefits extremists who use terror to target the innocent. And who suffers? The majority of loving families on both sides that just want freedom and peace.
To many, particularly in Europe and North America, calling for companies to withdraw investments from financing or taking part in Israel's occupation of Palestine sounds completely biased. But this campaign is not anti-Israel -- this is the most potent non-violent strategy to end the ritual violence, ensure Israelis' security and achieve Palestinian freedom. Although Hamas deserves much pressure too, it is already under crippling sanctions and facing every kind of pressure. Israel's power and wealth dwarfs Palestine, and if it refuses to end its illegal occupation, the world must act to make the cost unbearable.
Dutch pension fund ABP invests in Israeli banks that help fund the colonisation of Palestine. Massive banks like Barclays invest in suppliers of Israeli arms and other occupation businesses. British G4S provides extensive security equipment used by the Israeli Defence Force in the occupation. France's Veolia operates transport for Israeli settlers illegally living on Palestinian lands. Computer giant Hewlett-Packard supplies sophisticated surveillance to control the movement of Palestinians. And Caterpillar provides bulldozers that are used to demolish Palestinian homes and farms.
If we can create the biggest global call ever to get these companies to pull out, we will show clearly that the world will no longer be complicit in this bloodshed. The Palestinian people are calling on the world to support this path and progressive Israelis support it too. Let’s join them.
Our community has worked to bring peace, hope, and change to some of the world’s toughest conflicts, and often that means taking difficult positions to address the root cause. For years our community has looked for a political solution to this nightmare, but with this new round of horror unfolding in Gaza, the time has come to turn to sanctions and disinvestment to finally help end the horror for Israelis and Palestinians.
first semi-reasonable thing you've posted Byrnzie. At least there's an acknowledgement here that some of what Hamas does, including its anti-semitism, is disgusting. I would consider signing this. You stick to this stuff and avoid accusing all Jews of crimes against humanity and we're getting somewhere.
As a new round of violence kicks off in Israel-Palestine and more children are killed, it's not enough just to call for another ceasefire. It’s time to take definitive non-violent action to end this decades long nightmare.
Our governments have failed -- while they have talked peace and passed UN resolutions, they and our companies have continued to aid, trade and invest in the violence. The only way to stop this hellish cycle of Israel confiscating Palestinian lands, daily collective punishment of innocent Palestinian families, Hamas firing rockets, and Israel bombing Gaza is to make the economic cost of this conflict too high to bear.
We know it works -- when EU countries issued guidelines not to fund the illegal Israeli settlements it caused an earthquake in the cabinet, and when citizens successfully persuaded a Dutch pension fund, PGGM, to withdraw, it created a political storm.
This may not feel like a direct way to stop the current killing, but history tells us that raising the financial cost of oppression can pave a path to peace. Sign the petition on the right and call on 6 key banks, pension funds and businesses to pull out -- If we all take smart action now and turn up the heat, they could withdraw, the Israeli economy will take a hit, and we can turn the calculation of the extremists politically profiting from this hell upside down.
In the last six weeks three Israeli teenagers were murdered in the West Bank, a Palestinian boy was burnt alive, an American kid was brutally beaten up by Israeli police, and now almost 100 Gazan kids have died in Israeli air strikes. This is not the "Middle East conflict", it's becoming a war on children. And we are becoming numb to this global shame.
The media makes out like this is an intractable conflict between two equal warring parties, but it is not. Palestinian extremists' attacks on innocent civilians are never justified and Hamas’ anti-semitism is disgusting. But these extremists claim legitimacy by fighting the grotesque, decades-long oppression by the Israeli state. Israel currently occupies, colonises, bombs, raids, and controls the water, trade and the borders of a legally free nation that has been recognised by the United Nations. In Gaza, Israel has created the largest open-air prison in the world, and then blockaded it. Now as bombs fall, the families literally have no way to get out.
These are war crimes and we wouldn't accept that anywhere else: why accept it in Palestine? Half a century ago Israel and its Arab neighbours went to war and Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Occupying territory after war happens all the time. But no military occupation should turn into a decades-long tyranny which only fuels and benefits extremists who use terror to target the innocent. And who suffers? The majority of loving families on both sides that just want freedom and peace.
To many, particularly in Europe and North America, calling for companies to withdraw investments from financing or taking part in Israel's occupation of Palestine sounds completely biased. But this campaign is not anti-Israel -- this is the most potent non-violent strategy to end the ritual violence, ensure Israelis' security and achieve Palestinian freedom. Although Hamas deserves much pressure too, it is already under crippling sanctions and facing every kind of pressure. Israel's power and wealth dwarfs Palestine, and if it refuses to end its illegal occupation, the world must act to make the cost unbearable.
Dutch pension fund ABP invests in Israeli banks that help fund the colonisation of Palestine. Massive banks like Barclays invest in suppliers of Israeli arms and other occupation businesses. British G4S provides extensive security equipment used by the Israeli Defence Force in the occupation. France's Veolia operates transport for Israeli settlers illegally living on Palestinian lands. Computer giant Hewlett-Packard supplies sophisticated surveillance to control the movement of Palestinians. And Caterpillar provides bulldozers that are used to demolish Palestinian homes and farms.
If we can create the biggest global call ever to get these companies to pull out, we will show clearly that the world will no longer be complicit in this bloodshed. The Palestinian people are calling on the world to support this path and progressive Israelis support it too. Let’s join them.
Our community has worked to bring peace, hope, and change to some of the world’s toughest conflicts, and often that means taking difficult positions to address the root cause. For years our community has looked for a political solution to this nightmare, but with this new round of horror unfolding in Gaza, the time has come to turn to sanctions and disinvestment to finally help end the horror for Israelis and Palestinians.
first semi-reasonable thing you've posted Byrnzie. At least there's an acknowledgement here that some of what Hamas does, including its anti-semitism, is disgusting. I would consider signing this. You stick to this stuff and avoid accusing all Jews of crimes against humanity and we're getting somewhere.
I don't recall Byrnzie ever accusing all Jews of crimes against humanity...
Also, saying this for probably my third time here, it's time to stop using the word anti-Semitism, and to change it to anti-Jewish sentiments if they're statements against Jews, or anti-Zionist sentiment if they're statements against the Zionist movement.
A Semite is one who speaks a Semitic language (like Hebrew or Arabic), and this remained the definition until German philosophers and economists, towards the end of the 19th century, began to use Jews as scapegoats for financial plights, and document this using the terms 'anti-Semitism' and 'Jew-hatred' interchangeably. The way I see it, this modern use was a term coined out of racism at a time when racism was prevalent, created by those who were racist - much like an atrocious word beginning with the letter N that makes people (myself included) cringe. In addition to the dirty origins of the modern etymology of the word, any terms which divide the world into 'us' and 'everybody else' are antiquated and elitist, and should be stopped entirely. It's the same reason I give my grandmother dirty looks when she talks about "goys" (non-Jews). As bigoted as she is, she no longer uses that word (at least around me). We should be trying to blur the lines between 'us' and 'them' - whoever 'us' and 'them' are in the world - and embracing the inherent sameness of all of us that live, breathe, eat and sleep.
Khaled Mashaal, in his interview with Charlie Rose, very clearly said he is ready and willing to co-exist with Jews, but also said that he will not recognize Israel's right to exist. These are extremely different points, and a good example of being anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish (though technically he is neither pro- nor anti-Zionist, as his typical statement is that it is for the future residents of the State of Palestine to decide whether Israel has the right to exist). And, since he spoke in Arabic when he made these statements - he sure as hell isn't an anti-Semite in the true form of the word.
Sorry for this rant about semantics, I'm very tired of seeing this word used and abused. Also sorry if it doesn't make sense - coffee's left me particularly jittery today.
'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
all jews are guilty of crimes against humanity is basically what that michael neumann guy said in the article he posted. the avaaz petition is at least a position you can engage with.
all jews are guilty of crimes against humanity is basically what that michael neumann guy said in the article he posted. the avaaz petition is at least a position you can engage with.
I think this statement is a gross oversimplification of what Neumann wrote in Byrnzie's linked article, and I would recommend anyone read it before assuming this conclusion is accurate (http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/06/04/what-is-antisemitism/).
From my interpretation, Neumann's article is based on the premise that there has been definitional inflation applied to the term of 'anti-Semitism' to create an umbrella encapsulating anti-Zionist sentiment, disagreement with Israeli policy or aggression, anti-Jewish sentiment, pro-Palestinian sentiment, equating them all to one morally apprehensible act (anti-Semitism). The issue then becomes that a Jew is either against Israeli policy or aggression (or anti-Semitic) - which has been deemed morally apprehensible - or, conversely, pro-Zionist (or pro-Semitism), which would mean supporting a country with policies which violate international law and actively performs war crimes, and thus, leave one taking a morally apprehensible position. In this case, denouncing the statement of equivalence (anti-Zionist=one who disagrees with Israeli policy or aggression=anti-Jewish sentiment=pro-Palestinian sentiment=anti-Semitism) would actually ensure that you are not subject to this umbrella of 'people supporting morally apprehensible decisions'. So, once again, I'm calling for the extinction of the modern term anti-Semitism, for both the implied and abused false equivalences, and the fact that it does a great disservice to nearly anyone who uses it as it promotes different treatment of one sect of people from the rest. And, once again, I want to add that this is my interpretation of the article, and anyone else's might disagree with it.
That being said, I completely agree that the Avaaz position is one that will be a lot easier for many to swallow. I signed.
'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
I don't think being critical of Israel or pro-Palestinian = anti-Semitic, for sure. But it seemed to me like Neumann was saying that any Jew who doesn't denounce Israel is guilty of war crimes by proxy. That seems pretty far out there.
all jews are guilty of crimes against humanity is basically what that michael neumann guy said in the article he posted. the avaaz petition is at least a position you can engage with.
He said nothing of the sort. Here's what he said:
"it would [...] be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes"
Most Jews probably support the existence of that state as opposed to every action it commits, like most Americans probably support the existence of their country even when they're critical of some of its actions.
Anyway, I was glad to see you support a petition that included criticism of Hamas as well as Israel.
Most Jews probably support the existence of that state as opposed to every action it commits, like most Americans probably support the existence of their country even when they're critical of some of its actions
What does supporting Israel's existence have to do with the crimes it commits, including multiple war crimes and the criminal occupation and settlement building?
95% of Israeli's supported the most recent massacre of Palestinian civilians.
Also:
'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it. When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'" Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
Maybe this is what Michael Neumann was referring to?
You can't just start looking at history arbitrarily in 1982 though Byrnzie. You're picking the exact moment Israel turned from 'underdog' to 'oppressor' in most of the world's eyes.
It's hard to paint Israel as the oppressor if you go back nine more years to the Yom Kipput War, for example.
I'm not pointing this out to absolve Israel - I'm saying that any historical analysis of the MidEast, if you're gonna go that route, should be complete and not partial.
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
To be fair, Israel says that Hamas is a terrorist organization and thus won't speak face-to-face. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist and thus won't speak face-to-face. Both these mentalities are detrimental to the peace process.
From Hamas' perspective, as I see it, if Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, they are broadcasting an opinion which they claim is from an official status (ie. Hamas is the voice of the governing body of Gaza) that the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in '48 was permissible. If they do this, it is conceivable that it would change the ease of negotiations regarding rights of refugees as a result of the Nakba. Based on this, when Hamas says that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist, I perceive that as bowing out, opting against speaking on behalf of Palestinians, understanding that the issue of reparations is one for the people to vote upon (which Khaled Mashaal stated in his Charlie Rose interview clearly when he mentioned that when the Palestinian people have their own established state, it will be for them to decide whether Israel has the right to exist). In fact, since Hamas does not govern the West Bank, that suggests even more to me that Hamas would be out of line to venture down the discussion path of reparations, since they don't even represent the entirety of the Palestinian people.
If Israel would stop placing the demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist be recognized (ie. reaffirm the validation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel), that would eliminate one road block to peace. Similarly, Israel really ought to recognize that Hamas' acts are by and large a resistance force in response to what is referred to by the UN itself as an occupation. They do not have to agree with Hamas' actions nor methods - they simply have to accept that they are an understandable response to the perception of an occupation.
As for stability - Hamas' demands for a long-term truce have remained consistent for a number of years now (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/). Unfortunately, so long as Hamas keeps requesting 'truces with the plan of establishment at a later date' instead of 'the right to establish a Palestinian state', I can't envision a scenario with the former which appeases both Israeli security requests and true, uninhibited Palestinian liberation (ie. Israeli security, as perceived by the Israeli government, requires border controls and limitations and restrictions on goods and personnel traffic, true Palestinian liberation requires the absence of all of these things). If the truce conditions laid out were different and in favour of the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, almost all of the ten laid out conditions would be met, and from my perspective, the only discerning factor would be that the accountability for rockets fired out of Gaza would reside solely with Hamas, and there would be no justifiable reason for them (unlike current conditions, where it is at least debatably justifiable as a response to an occupation). I have asked several times here why this might not have been requested by Hamas leaders here, and haven't even been given any potential reasons why. It is a critical question and is one of the major reasons I'm developing skepticism with regards to Hamas' motives.
'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
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
To be fair, Israel says that Hamas is a terrorist organization and thus won't speak face-to-face. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist and thus won't speak face-to-face. Both these mentalities are detrimental to the peace process.
From Hamas' perspective, as I see it, if Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, they are broadcasting an opinion which they claim is from an official status (ie. Hamas is the voice of the governing body of Gaza) that the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in '48 was permissible. If they do this, it is conceivable that it would change the ease of negotiations regarding rights of refugees as a result of the Nakba. Based on this, when Hamas says that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist, I perceive that as bowing out, opting against speaking on behalf of Palestinians, understanding that the issue of reparations is one for the people to vote upon (which Khaled Mashaal stated in his Charlie Rose interview clearly when he mentioned that when the Palestinian people have their own established state, it will be for them to decide whether Israel has the right to exist). In fact, since Hamas does not govern the West Bank, that suggests even more to me that Hamas would be out of line to venture down the discussion path of reparations, since they don't even represent the entirety of the Palestinian people.
If Israel would stop placing the demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist be recognized (ie. reaffirm the validation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel), that would eliminate one road block to peace. Similarly, Israel really ought to recognize that Hamas' acts are by and large a resistance force in response to what is referred to by the UN itself as an occupation. They do not have to agree with Hamas' actions nor methods - they simply have to accept that they are an understandable response to the perception of an occupation.
As for stability - Hamas' demands for a long-term truce have remained consistent for a number of years now (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/). Unfortunately, so long as Hamas keeps requesting 'truces with the plan of establishment at a later date' instead of 'the right to establish a Palestinian state', I can't envision a scenario with the former which appeases both Israeli security requests and true, uninhibited Palestinian liberation (ie. Israeli security, as perceived by the Israeli government, requires border controls and limitations and restrictions on goods and personnel traffic, true Palestinian liberation requires the absence of all of these things). If the truce conditions laid out were different and in favour of the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, almost all of the ten laid out conditions would be met, and from my perspective, the only discerning factor would be that the accountability for rockets fired out of Gaza would reside solely with Hamas, and there would be no justifiable reason for them (unlike current conditions, where it is at least debatably justifiable as a response to an occupation). I have asked several times here why this might not have been requested by Hamas leaders here, and haven't even been given any potential reasons why. It is a critical question and is one of the major reasons I'm developing skepticism with regards to Hamas' motives.
It's actually not really complicated why they haven't. In fact, you answered it yourself. "Asking" for a state to be established only in the West Bank and Gaza would mean that they officially cede 78% of historic Palestine to Israel to do as they wish, i.e. maintain a Zionist "Jewish" state. You said yourself that it makes sense why Hamas feels that they cannot speak on behalf of Palestinians by recognizing the Zionist state and thereby ignoring its creation and the subsequent refugee crisis, and yet you think they should ask to be given a state on only 22% of the land? Hamas is merely remaining consistent in this request, i.e., allow Palestinians the right to free trade, open borders, freedom of movement, and so on, things that are internationally recognized as human rights, and then the Palestinian people when they are given a chance to breathe can decide for themselves the future of their state AND its relationship to Israel.
You, benjs, may now revise your stance and think that this is wrong, but they are merely remaining consistent in their approach. You may say, well, Israel will not agree to this because of their "security needs". But Israel as an occupying force has no security needs. Its military dwarfs any joke of a "resistance" the Palestinians have tried to muster up. They have been concerned historically with two things, fulfilling their Zionist vision by taking as much land as possible and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian population from the land, and second, by crushing Palestinian national aspirations -- this is regardless of whether those aspirations are being realized through any sort of armed movement, or any nonviolent protest. Both are met harshly, through extrajudicial killings, arbitrary imprisonment, collective punishment inflicted upon the population through house demolitions and starvation, poor access to water and electricity supplies, restrictions in their ability to simply move, separating families, and so on.
The motivating factor which needs to be criticized is the Zionist ideology, and the obsession with maintaining a Jewish-majority state which treats one people better than another, the clear-cut definition of an apartheid state, with a settler-colonial twist to add on top of that.
I know these words make dancinacrossthewater feel funny inside, but the daily life of a Palestinian involves LIVING these words. Grow up.
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
Oh do they look pretty good? Do they look good when the deal involves guaranteeing gas from Egypt's Sinai peninsula being exported to Israel at the expense of the Egyptian people? Does Sadat, a man who acted as one of the Middle East's worst dictators, represent a "stable" partner? As opposed to Hamas who was actually elected by the Palestinian people?
Typical orientalist outlook: Let these strongmen dictators who along with Israel will financially exploit "peace" because the savage Arab population can't do it themselves. Except for the fact that just like Israel itself, these dictators are concerned with only benefiting themselves. Israel gained what they needed from the Sinai (cheap gas) and was able to take out the biggest Arab force opposing its treatment of Palestinians (Egypt). The Egyptian oligarchy along with the military establishment was able to line its pockets through the deal with over $1billion of US military aid a year, along with billions upon billions of dollars worth of gas deals with Israel. Is this the peace you want?
Meanwhile, the Israelis will never leave aside their Zionist dream of establishing a state in Palestine, with a Jewish-majority population, even if it means expelling and killing more Palestinians.
You need to read your history, and you need to study the Middle East more deeply than superficial wikipedia searches if you seriously want to discuss this. No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just telling you you're wrong, and if you want to be taken seriously then you need to figure out how to be right.
It's hard to paint Israel as the oppressor if you go back nine more years to the Yom Kippur War, for example.
The Yom Kippur war, when Egypt and Syria sought to reclaim land stolen by Israel in 1967?
On 6 October 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights in an attempt to liberate their territory occupied by Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League explained the Arab action: "In a final analysis, Arab action is justifiable, moral and valid under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. There is no aggression, no attempt to acquire new territories. But to restore and liberate all the occupied territories is a duty for all able self-respecting peoples" (Sunday Times, 14 October 1973)
Then again, this war could have been avoided.
'After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286).
When these overtures were ignored by Washington and Tel Aviv, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated action in October 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan Heights.
It was clear that the Arab World could not go on indefinitely watching Israel expel Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians while installing Jewish settlers in their thousands. By 1973 nearly 100 settlements had been established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been displaced, expelled, imprisoned or deported.
NOAM CHOMSKY: For Israel — it was a fateful decision. That’s the point at which Israel quite explicitly chose expansion over security. They were then expanding into the Sinai, planning to build a city of a million people, Egyptian Sinai, settlements driving farmers out into the desert and so on. Well, that was the background for the 1973 war, which made it clear that Egypt can’t simply be dismissed. Then we move on to the negotiations which led, in 1979, to the U.S. and Israel pretty much accepting Sadat’s offer of 1971: withdrawal from the Sinai in return for a peace treaty. That’s called a great diplomatic triumph. In fact, it was a diplomatic catastrophe. The failure to accept it in 1971 led to a very dangerous war, suffering, brutality and so on. And finally, the U.S. and Israel essentially, more or less, accepted it.
On the relationship between Israel's magnanimous peace treaty with Egypt and it's expansion of illegal settlements in the Occupied Teritories:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/19/noam_chomsky_the_us_israel_strongly Chomsky: There was a peace treaty in 1979, and it was interpreted in Israel right away, and in the United States, as essentially licensing Israel to expand its criminal activities in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, Lebanon, which is exactly what it did. The reasoning, which was pretty clearly expressed, is that with Egypt neutralized—that’s the one major deterrent to Israeli actions—and if they’re neutralized, if there’s a peace treaty they pull out of it, then Israel is free to go ahead to do what it wants in the Occupied Territories and attacking Lebanon. Notice that’s exactly what happened. Now that’s—they’re very—and it’s continued that way. And there’s plenty of bitterness in Egypt about this.
You can't just start looking at history arbitrarily in 1982 though Byrnzie. You're picking the exact moment Israel turned from 'underdog' to 'oppressor' in most of the world's eyes.
Please explain to me how Israel was the 'underdog' in 1967 when it attacked Egypt and Syria and destroyed the Egyptian air force whilst it was still on the ground. Thanks.
If Israel would stop placing the demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist be recognized (ie. reaffirm the validation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel), that would eliminate one road block to peace. Similarly, Israel really ought to recognize that Hamas' acts are by and large a resistance force in response to what is referred to by the UN itself as an occupation. They do not have to agree with Hamas' actions nor methods - they simply have to accept that they are an understandable response to the perception of an occupation.
As for stability - Hamas' demands for a long-term truce have remained consistent for a number of years now (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/). Unfortunately, so long as Hamas keeps requesting 'truces with the plan of establishment at a later date' instead of 'the right to establish a Palestinian state', I can't envision a scenario with the former which appeases both Israeli security requests and true, uninhibited Palestinian liberation (ie. Israeli security, as perceived by the Israeli government, requires border controls and limitations and restrictions on goods and personnel traffic, true Palestinian liberation requires the absence of all of these things). If the truce conditions laid out were different and in favour of the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, almost all of the ten laid out conditions would be met, and from my perspective, the only discerning factor would be that the accountability for rockets fired out of Gaza would reside solely with Hamas, and there would be no justifiable reason for them (unlike current conditions, where it is at least debatably justifiable as a response to an occupation). I have asked several times here why this might not have been requested by Hamas leaders here, and haven't even been given any potential reasons why. It is a critical question and is one of the major reasons I'm developing skepticism with regards to Hamas' motives.
It's actually not really complicated why they haven't. In fact, you answered it yourself. "Asking" for a state to be established only in the West Bank and Gaza would mean that they officially cede 78% of historic Palestine to Israel to do as they wish, i.e. maintain a Zionist "Jewish" state. You said yourself that it makes sense why Hamas feels that they cannot speak on behalf of Palestinians by recognizing the Zionist state and thereby ignoring its creation and the subsequent refugee crisis, and yet you think they should ask to be given a state on only 22% of the land? Hamas is merely remaining consistent in this request, i.e., allow Palestinians the right to free trade, open borders, freedom of movement, and so on, things that are internationally recognized as human rights, and then the Palestinian people when they are given a chance to breathe can decide for themselves the future of their state AND its relationship to Israel.
You, benjs, may now revise your stance and think that this is wrong, but they are merely remaining consistent in their approach. You may say, well, Israel will not agree to this because of their "security needs". But Israel as an occupying force has no security needs. Its military dwarfs any joke of a "resistance" the Palestinians have tried to muster up. They have been concerned historically with two things, fulfilling their Zionist vision by taking as much land as possible and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian population from the land, and second, by crushing Palestinian national aspirations -- this is regardless of whether those aspirations are being realized through any sort of armed movement, or any nonviolent protest. Both are met harshly, through extrajudicial killings, arbitrary imprisonment, collective punishment inflicted upon the population through house demolitions and starvation, poor access to water and electricity supplies, restrictions in their ability to simply move, separating families, and so on.
The motivating factor which needs to be criticized is the Zionist ideology, and the obsession with maintaining a Jewish-majority state which treats one people better than another, the clear-cut definition of an apartheid state, with a settler-colonial twist to add on top of that.
I know these words make dancinacrossthewater feel funny inside, but the daily life of a Palestinian involves LIVING these words. Grow up.
fuck, I guess we have different perspectives on what Palestinians being given Gaza and the West Bank to establish a Palestinian state upon would truly mean. I don't think that the establishment of such a state would preclude reparations for past atrocities, as I don't think Hamas should be obligated to recognize Israel's right to exist prior to these negotiations.
Also, my stance is still unchanged: Palestinians deserve their own state, and adequate reparations for their turmoil over the years. The most fair reparations would be a one-state solution with secular government, but with Israel's government aligned so far to the religious right, I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon.
It is an absolutely legitimate concern that the fear of finality, closure, and no more rights to lobby for right to return would be byproducts of Hamas accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state on Gaza and the West Bank. To that, I would say that these concerns be addressed within a declaration of establishment. At least from this angle, Israel's security concerns (more on that in the next paragraph) will be met.
In regards to security concerns, when I use that term, I'm largely talking about the rhetoric presented by the Israeli government. A government that speaks about the barbarians on the other side of the border is going to be questioned by its citizens when it says "we're ready to drop all restrictions on Palestinian life" (in other words, the Israeli narrative begins to crumble because the security was never necessary in the first place). I do believe much of this is damage control: information flows too freely now, and the secrets are making their way out there. This probably comes into play when Israel contemplates the ramifications of the truce conditions offered by Hamas (though this is venturing into the purely speculative realm, and most of this paragraph should be considered opinion).
Finally, regarding the Zionist ideology, this is something I have said is unjust here a few times. It is elitist, and goes against the Balfour Declaration which Israel uses to justify its own existence to treat non-Jews any differently than Jews.
Again, we may have different visions of how the region needs to change, but at the end of the day, I would think it's safe to say that both of us here are looking for peace and justice, we just have different opinions of how to get there.
'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
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
Oh do they look pretty good? Do they look good when the deal involves guaranteeing gas from Egypt's Sinai peninsula being exported to Israel at the expense of the Egyptian people? Does Sadat, a man who acted as one of the Middle East's worst dictators, represent a "stable" partner? As opposed to Hamas who was actually elected by the Palestinian people?
Typical orientalist outlook: Let these strongmen dictators who along with Israel will financially exploit "peace" because the savage Arab population can't do it themselves. Except for the fact that just like Israel itself, these dictators are concerned with only benefiting themselves. Israel gained what they needed from the Sinai (cheap gas) and was able to take out the biggest Arab force opposing its treatment of Palestinians (Egypt). The Egyptian oligarchy along with the military establishment was able to line its pockets through the deal with over $1billion of US military aid a year, along with billions upon billions of dollars worth of gas deals with Israel. Is this the peace you want?
Meanwhile, the Israelis will never leave aside their Zionist dream of establishing a state in Palestine, with a Jewish-majority population, even if it means expelling and killing more Palestinians.
You need to read your history, and you need to study the Middle East more deeply than superficial wikipedia searches if you seriously want to discuss this. No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just telling you you're wrong, and if you want to be taken seriously then you need to figure out how to be right.
I think a lot of people on this board take me seriously and might have more trouble with someone who just flat out tries to shut someone else down.
You can't just start looking at history arbitrarily in 1982 though Byrnzie. You're picking the exact moment Israel turned from 'underdog' to 'oppressor' in most of the world's eyes.
Please explain to me how Israel was the 'underdog' in 1967 when it attacked Egypt and Syria and destroyed the Egyptian air force whilst it was still on the ground. Thanks.
Ok if you're questioning moral high ground when it comes to military tactics, how can you not mention that Israel was attacked on Yom Kippur in 73?! Christ.
What bothers me so much is that I am supporting BDS against Israel to help bring about Palestinian statehood, and that's not enough for you guys. You want Israel shamed and humiliated. That's where in all honesty you completely lose credibility
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
Oh do they look pretty good? Do they look good when the deal involves guaranteeing gas from Egypt's Sinai peninsula being exported to Israel at the expense of the Egyptian people? Does Sadat, a man who acted as one of the Middle East's worst dictators, represent a "stable" partner? As opposed to Hamas who was actually elected by the Palestinian people?
Typical orientalist outlook: Let these strongmen dictators who along with Israel will financially exploit "peace" because the savage Arab population can't do it themselves. Except for the fact that just like Israel itself, these dictators are concerned with only benefiting themselves. Israel gained what they needed from the Sinai (cheap gas) and was able to take out the biggest Arab force opposing its treatment of Palestinians (Egypt). The Egyptian oligarchy along with the military establishment was able to line its pockets through the deal with over $1billion of US military aid a year, along with billions upon billions of dollars worth of gas deals with Israel. Is this the peace you want?
Meanwhile, the Israelis will never leave aside their Zionist dream of establishing a state in Palestine, with a Jewish-majority population, even if it means expelling and killing more Palestinians.
You need to read your history, and you need to study the Middle East more deeply than superficial wikipedia searches if you seriously want to discuss this. No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just telling you you're wrong, and if you want to be taken seriously then you need to figure out how to be right.
I think a lot of people on this board take me seriously and might have more trouble with someone who just flat out tries to shut someone else down.
I'd rather be accused of "shutting someone down" than giving false information. I like the way you ignored the entire substance of my argument too. You say we only want to "shame" Israel, but all we are actually doing is explaining history and providing context. If, based on the information we supply, you then think Israel's actions have been shameful, then that's just cause it is.
Even if you go back just 3 years from 1982, which is your starting point, to the peace treaty of 79 with Egypt, Israel looks pretty good there (returning the Sinai peninsula).
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
Oh do they look pretty good? Do they look good when the deal involves guaranteeing gas from Egypt's Sinai peninsula being exported to Israel at the expense of the Egyptian people? Does Sadat, a man who acted as one of the Middle East's worst dictators, represent a "stable" partner? As opposed to Hamas who was actually elected by the Palestinian people?
Typical orientalist outlook: Let these strongmen dictators who along with Israel will financially exploit "peace" because the savage Arab population can't do it themselves. Except for the fact that just like Israel itself, these dictators are concerned with only benefiting themselves. Israel gained what they needed from the Sinai (cheap gas) and was able to take out the biggest Arab force opposing its treatment of Palestinians (Egypt). The Egyptian oligarchy along with the military establishment was able to line its pockets through the deal with over $1billion of US military aid a year, along with billions upon billions of dollars worth of gas deals with Israel. Is this the peace you want?
Meanwhile, the Israelis will never leave aside their Zionist dream of establishing a state in Palestine, with a Jewish-majority population, even if it means expelling and killing more Palestinians.
You need to read your history, and you need to study the Middle East more deeply than superficial wikipedia searches if you seriously want to discuss this. No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just telling you you're wrong, and if you want to be taken seriously then you need to figure out how to be right.
I think a lot of people on this board take me seriously and might have more trouble with someone who just flat out tries to shut someone else down.
I'd rather be accused of "shutting someone down" than giving false information. I like the way you ignored the entire substance of my argument too. You say we only want to "shame" Israel, but all we are actually doing is explaining history and providing context. If, based on the information we supply, you then think Israel's actions have been shameful, then that's just cause it is.
No doubt Fuck. Only thing shaming Israel is Israel itself. It's actions alone are the cause of the shame they are feeling wether they'd admit it or not.
Right but are you more interested in attacking Israel or actually achieving a peace?
I'm interested in peace, but you can't have peace without justice. And you can't have justice without holding Israel accountable for the crimes it has committed as the party that's been ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, and the occupying force.
The arguments you are using to attack us personally (such as implying that we are only interested in "attacking" Israel for whatever insane reason you may have come up with in your hand -- could it be we just hate Jews? -- or coming up with the same tired "You never criticize Hamas!" line which I've responded to more than once already) is simply an excuse to ignore the substance of our arguments, as you've very rarely ever actually engaged with my points when I refute your false information.
I'm not calling you guys Jew-haters. I've never done that. I just don't support the venom you possess for Israel, and I think that kind of venom damages the prospects for peace.
Any kind words any of you have for Israel and its people would go a long way. It just feels to me like you have trapped yourself in the position that any generous words towards Israel automatically equals a betrayal of the Palestinians, which is a false equation.
I'm not calling you guys Jew-haters. I've never done that. I just don't support the venom you possess for Israel, and I think that kind of venom damages the prospects for peace.
Any kind words any of you have for Israel and its people would go a long way. It just feels to me like you have trapped yourself in the position that any generous words towards Israel automatically equals a betrayal of the Palestinians, which is a false equation.
2,000 Palestinians were just murdered on your television screen, a fourth of them children - and you're concerned that we aren't saying enough nice things about Israel?
Were you saying this when the apartheid regime existed in South Africa?
I'm not calling you guys Jew-haters. I've never done that. I just don't support the venom you possess for Israel, and I think that kind of venom damages the prospects for peace.
Any kind words any of you have for Israel and its people would go a long way. It just feels to me like you have trapped yourself in the position that any generous words towards Israel automatically equals a betrayal of the Palestinians, which is a false equation.
2,000 Palestinians were just murdered on your television screen, a fourth of them children - and you're concerned that we aren't saying enough nice things about Israel?
Were you saying this when the apartheid regime existed in South Africa?
You don't even have to mention the 2000 Palestinians, just the 500 MURDERED children is all that's needed. Children, not adults or even Hamas fighters, but children. That's fucken terrible and shameful. Over rockets that are more firecrackers then anything. This is what our world has come to. War and misery=life
Comments
Palestinians throw rocks at IDF with high power scope rifles
Also, saying this for probably my third time here, it's time to stop using the word anti-Semitism, and to change it to anti-Jewish sentiments if they're statements against Jews, or anti-Zionist sentiment if they're statements against the Zionist movement.
A Semite is one who speaks a Semitic language (like Hebrew or Arabic), and this remained the definition until German philosophers and economists, towards the end of the 19th century, began to use Jews as scapegoats for financial plights, and document this using the terms 'anti-Semitism' and 'Jew-hatred' interchangeably. The way I see it, this modern use was a term coined out of racism at a time when racism was prevalent, created by those who were racist - much like an atrocious word beginning with the letter N that makes people (myself included) cringe. In addition to the dirty origins of the modern etymology of the word, any terms which divide the world into 'us' and 'everybody else' are antiquated and elitist, and should be stopped entirely. It's the same reason I give my grandmother dirty looks when she talks about "goys" (non-Jews). As bigoted as she is, she no longer uses that word (at least around me). We should be trying to blur the lines between 'us' and 'them' - whoever 'us' and 'them' are in the world - and embracing the inherent sameness of all of us that live, breathe, eat and sleep.
Khaled Mashaal, in his interview with Charlie Rose, very clearly said he is ready and willing to co-exist with Jews, but also said that he will not recognize Israel's right to exist. These are extremely different points, and a good example of being anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish (though technically he is neither pro- nor anti-Zionist, as his typical statement is that it is for the future residents of the State of Palestine to decide whether Israel has the right to exist). And, since he spoke in Arabic when he made these statements - he sure as hell isn't an anti-Semite in the true form of the word.
Sorry for this rant about semantics, I'm very tired of seeing this word used and abused. Also sorry if it doesn't make sense - coffee's left me particularly jittery today.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
From my interpretation, Neumann's article is based on the premise that there has been definitional inflation applied to the term of 'anti-Semitism' to create an umbrella encapsulating anti-Zionist sentiment, disagreement with Israeli policy or aggression, anti-Jewish sentiment, pro-Palestinian sentiment, equating them all to one morally apprehensible act (anti-Semitism). The issue then becomes that a Jew is either against Israeli policy or aggression (or anti-Semitic) - which has been deemed morally apprehensible - or, conversely, pro-Zionist (or pro-Semitism), which would mean supporting a country with policies which violate international law and actively performs war crimes, and thus, leave one taking a morally apprehensible position. In this case, denouncing the statement of equivalence (anti-Zionist=one who disagrees with Israeli policy or aggression=anti-Jewish sentiment=pro-Palestinian sentiment=anti-Semitism) would actually ensure that you are not subject to this umbrella of 'people supporting morally apprehensible decisions'. So, once again, I'm calling for the extinction of the modern term anti-Semitism, for both the implied and abused false equivalences, and the fact that it does a great disservice to nearly anyone who uses it as it promotes different treatment of one sect of people from the rest. And, once again, I want to add that this is my interpretation of the article, and anyone else's might disagree with it.
That being said, I completely agree that the Avaaz position is one that will be a lot easier for many to swallow. I signed.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"it would [...] be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes"
Again, try sticking to the facts.
Anyway, I was glad to see you support a petition that included criticism of Hamas as well as Israel.
95% of Israeli's supported the most recent massacre of Palestinian civilians.
Also:
'When Israel attacked Lebanon in in June 1982 in order to "safeguard the occupation of the West bank" (Yehoshafat Harkabi's phrase), the popularity ratings of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Begin soared, while more than 80 percent of Israeli's held the invasion to be justified. When Israel's battering of Beirut in August 1982 reached new heights of savagery, more than half of Israeli's still supported the begin-Sharon government, while more than 80 percent still supported the invasion - which in the end, left up to twenty thousand Lebanese and Palestinians, almost all civilians, dead, and which the U.N General Assembly condemned by a vote of 143 to 2 (United States and Israel) for inflicting "severe damage on civilian Palestinians, including heavy losses of human lives, intolerable sufferings and massive material destruction." Only when the costs of the Lebanon aggression proved too onerous - initially, from the worldwide outcry against the Sabra and Shatila massacres and, later, from the escalating military casualties - did Israeli's turn against it.
When Israel's violent repression of the first Intifada reached new heights of brutality in 1989, more than half of all Israeli's supported the deployment of yet "stronger measures" to quell the largely nonviolent civil revolt (only one in four supported any lessening of the repression), while "an overwhelming 72 percent...saw no contradiction between the army's handling of the uprising and 'the nation's democratic values.'"
Operation Defensive shield (March - April 2002), although wreaking devastation on Palestinian society and culminating in the commission by Israeli forces of "serious violations" of humanitarian law and "war crimes" in Jenin and Nablus, was supported by fully 90 percent of Israeli's.
Beyond the emotional support that Israeli's have lent to crimes of state, it bears emphasis that Israel relies on a citizen army to implement policy: the collective responsibility of the Israeli people accordingly runs much deeper than "moral complicity." Finally, Israel couldn't commit such crimes without unconditional political and economic support from the United States, and it's the likes of Dershowitz who, through shameless apologetics and brazen distortions, crucially facilitate this unconditional support. What if Dershowitz's home were subject to the "benign form of collective accountability" he urges for Palestinians?'
Maybe this is what Michael Neumann was referring to?
It's hard to paint Israel as the oppressor if you go back nine more years to the Yom Kipput War, for example.
I'm not pointing this out to absolve Israel - I'm saying that any historical analysis of the MidEast, if you're gonna go that route, should be complete and not partial.
Of course, to take the other perspective, if Israel was able to return land then, why is it so damn hard to do now? Part of it has to do with who it's being returned to - Sadat/Egypt certainly represented a much more stable negotiating partner than Hamas does.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
From Hamas' perspective, as I see it, if Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, they are broadcasting an opinion which they claim is from an official status (ie. Hamas is the voice of the governing body of Gaza) that the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in '48 was permissible. If they do this, it is conceivable that it would change the ease of negotiations regarding rights of refugees as a result of the Nakba. Based on this, when Hamas says that it does not recognize Israel's right to exist, I perceive that as bowing out, opting against speaking on behalf of Palestinians, understanding that the issue of reparations is one for the people to vote upon (which Khaled Mashaal stated in his Charlie Rose interview clearly when he mentioned that when the Palestinian people have their own established state, it will be for them to decide whether Israel has the right to exist). In fact, since Hamas does not govern the West Bank, that suggests even more to me that Hamas would be out of line to venture down the discussion path of reparations, since they don't even represent the entirety of the Palestinian people.
If Israel would stop placing the demand that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist be recognized (ie. reaffirm the validation of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel), that would eliminate one road block to peace. Similarly, Israel really ought to recognize that Hamas' acts are by and large a resistance force in response to what is referred to by the UN itself as an occupation. They do not have to agree with Hamas' actions nor methods - they simply have to accept that they are an understandable response to the perception of an occupation.
As for stability - Hamas' demands for a long-term truce have remained consistent for a number of years now (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/). Unfortunately, so long as Hamas keeps requesting 'truces with the plan of establishment at a later date' instead of 'the right to establish a Palestinian state', I can't envision a scenario with the former which appeases both Israeli security requests and true, uninhibited Palestinian liberation (ie. Israeli security, as perceived by the Israeli government, requires border controls and limitations and restrictions on goods and personnel traffic, true Palestinian liberation requires the absence of all of these things). If the truce conditions laid out were different and in favour of the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, almost all of the ten laid out conditions would be met, and from my perspective, the only discerning factor would be that the accountability for rockets fired out of Gaza would reside solely with Hamas, and there would be no justifiable reason for them (unlike current conditions, where it is at least debatably justifiable as a response to an occupation). I have asked several times here why this might not have been requested by Hamas leaders here, and haven't even been given any potential reasons why. It is a critical question and is one of the major reasons I'm developing skepticism with regards to Hamas' motives.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You, benjs, may now revise your stance and think that this is wrong, but they are merely remaining consistent in their approach. You may say, well, Israel will not agree to this because of their "security needs". But Israel as an occupying force has no security needs. Its military dwarfs any joke of a "resistance" the Palestinians have tried to muster up. They have been concerned historically with two things, fulfilling their Zionist vision by taking as much land as possible and ethnically cleansing the Palestinian population from the land, and second, by crushing Palestinian national aspirations -- this is regardless of whether those aspirations are being realized through any sort of armed movement, or any nonviolent protest. Both are met harshly, through extrajudicial killings, arbitrary imprisonment, collective punishment inflicted upon the population through house demolitions and starvation, poor access to water and electricity supplies, restrictions in their ability to simply move, separating families, and so on.
The motivating factor which needs to be criticized is the Zionist ideology, and the obsession with maintaining a Jewish-majority state which treats one people better than another, the clear-cut definition of an apartheid state, with a settler-colonial twist to add on top of that.
I know these words make dancinacrossthewater feel funny inside, but the daily life of a Palestinian involves LIVING these words. Grow up.
Typical orientalist outlook: Let these strongmen dictators who along with Israel will financially exploit "peace" because the savage Arab population can't do it themselves. Except for the fact that just like Israel itself, these dictators are concerned with only benefiting themselves. Israel gained what they needed from the Sinai (cheap gas) and was able to take out the biggest Arab force opposing its treatment of Palestinians (Egypt). The Egyptian oligarchy along with the military establishment was able to line its pockets through the deal with over $1billion of US military aid a year, along with billions upon billions of dollars worth of gas deals with Israel. Is this the peace you want?
Meanwhile, the Israelis will never leave aside their Zionist dream of establishing a state in Palestine, with a Jewish-majority population, even if it means expelling and killing more Palestinians.
You need to read your history, and you need to study the Middle East more deeply than superficial wikipedia searches if you seriously want to discuss this. No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm just telling you you're wrong, and if you want to be taken seriously then you need to figure out how to be right.
On 6 October 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights in an attempt to liberate their territory occupied by Israel. The Secretary-General of the Arab League explained the Arab action: "In a final analysis, Arab action is justifiable, moral and valid under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. There is no aggression, no attempt to acquire new territories. But to restore and liberate all the occupied territories is a duty for all able self-respecting peoples" (Sunday Times, 14 October 1973)
Then again, this war could have been avoided.
'After coming to power in late 1970, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat indicated to the United States that he was willing to negotiate with Israel to resolve the conflict in exchange for Egyptian territory lost in 1967. In February 1971 he offered a full peace treaty to Israel, which it rejected, although international consensus supported the Sadat offer which conformed to the US position (John Kimche, There Could Have Been Peace, Dial, 1973, p. 286).
When these overtures were ignored by Washington and Tel Aviv, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated action in October 1973 against Israeli forces occupying the Egyptian Sinai and Syrian Golan Heights.
It was clear that the Arab World could not go on indefinitely watching Israel expel Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians while installing Jewish settlers in their thousands. By 1973 nearly 100 settlements had been established and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been displaced, expelled, imprisoned or deported.
NOAM CHOMSKY: For Israel — it was a fateful decision. That’s the point at which Israel quite explicitly chose expansion over security. They were then expanding into the Sinai, planning to build a city of a million people, Egyptian Sinai, settlements driving farmers out into the desert and so on. Well, that was the background for the 1973 war, which made it clear that Egypt can’t simply be dismissed. Then we move on to the negotiations which led, in 1979, to the U.S. and Israel pretty much accepting Sadat’s offer of 1971: withdrawal from the Sinai in return for a peace treaty. That’s called a great diplomatic triumph. In fact, it was a diplomatic catastrophe. The failure to accept it in 1971 led to a very dangerous war, suffering, brutality and so on. And finally, the U.S. and Israel essentially, more or less, accepted it.
On the relationship between Israel's magnanimous peace treaty with Egypt and it's expansion of illegal settlements in the Occupied Teritories:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/19/noam_chomsky_the_us_israel_strongly
Chomsky: There was a peace treaty in 1979, and it was interpreted in Israel right away, and in the United States, as essentially licensing Israel to expand its criminal activities in the Occupied Territories and to attack its northern neighbor, Lebanon, which is exactly what it did. The reasoning, which was pretty clearly expressed, is that with Egypt neutralized—that’s the one major deterrent to Israeli actions—and if they’re neutralized, if there’s a peace treaty they pull out of it, then Israel is free to go ahead to do what it wants in the Occupied Territories and attacking Lebanon. Notice that’s exactly what happened. Now that’s—they’re very—and it’s continued that way. And there’s plenty of bitterness in Egypt about this.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5955077/israeli-support-for-the-gaza-war-is-basically-unanimous
http://www.timesofisrael.com/over-90-of-jewish-israelis-say-gaza-op-justified/
http://newslines.org/israel/95-of-israelis-support-protective-edge/
Also, my stance is still unchanged: Palestinians deserve their own state, and adequate reparations for their turmoil over the years. The most fair reparations would be a one-state solution with secular government, but with Israel's government aligned so far to the religious right, I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon.
It is an absolutely legitimate concern that the fear of finality, closure, and no more rights to lobby for right to return would be byproducts of Hamas accepting the establishment of a Palestinian state on Gaza and the West Bank. To that, I would say that these concerns be addressed within a declaration of establishment. At least from this angle, Israel's security concerns (more on that in the next paragraph) will be met.
In regards to security concerns, when I use that term, I'm largely talking about the rhetoric presented by the Israeli government. A government that speaks about the barbarians on the other side of the border is going to be questioned by its citizens when it says "we're ready to drop all restrictions on Palestinian life" (in other words, the Israeli narrative begins to crumble because the security was never necessary in the first place). I do believe much of this is damage control: information flows too freely now, and the secrets are making their way out there. This probably comes into play when Israel contemplates the ramifications of the truce conditions offered by Hamas (though this is venturing into the purely speculative realm, and most of this paragraph should be considered opinion).
Finally, regarding the Zionist ideology, this is something I have said is unjust here a few times. It is elitist, and goes against the Balfour Declaration which Israel uses to justify its own existence to treat non-Jews any differently than Jews.
Again, we may have different visions of how the region needs to change, but at the end of the day, I would think it's safe to say that both of us here are looking for peace and justice, we just have different opinions of how to get there.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
What bothers me so much is that I am supporting BDS against Israel to help bring about Palestinian statehood, and that's not enough for you guys. You want Israel shamed and humiliated.
That's where in all honesty you completely lose credibility
I say the same things to Jews who can't move beyond the holocaust.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The arguments you are using to attack us personally (such as implying that we are only interested in "attacking" Israel for whatever insane reason you may have come up with in your hand -- could it be we just hate Jews? -- or coming up with the same tired "You never criticize Hamas!" line which I've responded to more than once already) is simply an excuse to ignore the substance of our arguments, as you've very rarely ever actually engaged with my points when I refute your false information.
Any kind words any of you have for Israel and its people would go a long way. It just feels to me like you have trapped yourself in the position that any generous words towards Israel automatically equals a betrayal of the Palestinians, which is a false equation.
Were you saying this when the apartheid regime existed in South Africa?