More precisely, for its supporters. It's an easy and cheap occasion to confirm support and pledge allegiance to Israel.
Let me put it this way. Those UN conferences are non-binding, their final resolutions accept exceptions (that is, a country can say they don't endorse clauses 2, 5, and 28a) and are generally a good way to put up a good show and produce a declaration with a good title. So really, agreeing or disagreeing with whatever takes place there comes at very little diplomatic cost - and major media coverage.
Durban II was stillborn. Months before, the main topic of discussion wasn't racism, wasn't the worst regimes in the world, wasn't apologies for past slavery or any such thing.
It was Israel, or more precisely, how to make sure that Israel doesn't in the least bit get criticised - regardless of whether they actually are guilty of racism or not. That was completely irrelevant. Occupied Palestinians as well as Israeli Arabs be damned.
Various countries withdrew from the conference ahead of time, and those who still wanted to bend over to Israel had plenty of room to do it at Geneva.
In the words of French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei, who walked out during Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's speech: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room".
Mind you, it wasn't what he said about Israel or its establishment, the words he used, the arguments he put forward: just the fact that he dared to mention the State of Israel.
There's a name for this: censorship.
Jewish Voices for Peace has an interesting initiative regarding this issue - MuzzleWatch.
JVP's Cecilie Shurasky writes that pro-Israel side events are proliferating, while opposing views were generally banned.
Check out her coverage from Geneva.
Of course, that Ahmedinejad went surely didn't help, and that jackass is as much guilty for the failure of the conference as various Israel-lobbies in OECD capitals. If he really cared about the racism that the Palestinians face on a daily basis, he should've stayed at home and let the conference follow its course, rather than beautifully assist those attempting to hijack it into a pro-Israel choir.
And blogged about the conference, or something.
Let me put it this way. Those UN conferences are non-binding, their final resolutions accept exceptions (that is, a country can say they don't endorse clauses 2, 5, and 28a) and are generally a good way to put up a good show and produce a declaration with a good title. So really, agreeing or disagreeing with whatever takes place there comes at very little diplomatic cost - and major media coverage.
Durban II was stillborn. Months before, the main topic of discussion wasn't racism, wasn't the worst regimes in the world, wasn't apologies for past slavery or any such thing.
It was Israel, or more precisely, how to make sure that Israel doesn't in the least bit get criticised - regardless of whether they actually are guilty of racism or not. That was completely irrelevant. Occupied Palestinians as well as Israeli Arabs be damned.
Various countries withdrew from the conference ahead of time, and those who still wanted to bend over to Israel had plenty of room to do it at Geneva.
In the words of French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei, who walked out during Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's speech: "As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room".
Mind you, it wasn't what he said about Israel or its establishment, the words he used, the arguments he put forward: just the fact that he dared to mention the State of Israel.
There's a name for this: censorship.
Jewish Voices for Peace has an interesting initiative regarding this issue - MuzzleWatch.
JVP's Cecilie Shurasky writes that pro-Israel side events are proliferating, while opposing views were generally banned.
Check out her coverage from Geneva.
Of course, that Ahmedinejad went surely didn't help, and that jackass is as much guilty for the failure of the conference as various Israel-lobbies in OECD capitals. If he really cared about the racism that the Palestinians face on a daily basis, he should've stayed at home and let the conference follow its course, rather than beautifully assist those attempting to hijack it into a pro-Israel choir.
And blogged about the conference, or something.
70 comments:
The last thing Israel needs at this point is a PR pep rally at geneva, though "Israel Supporters" might be too blind to see it.
Durban is, and was, stillborn so long as it swings between a racist one-topic discussion of Israel and overly-politically-correct mincing of words to the point that all meaning is lost. The middle path is not without some animus; this is a conference about racism, so it isn't going to be all warm fuzzies when you call offenders to account. Last time it wasn't about calling offenders to account, it was about calling Israel to account -- and while there is more than one conference full of account to lay at Israel's feet, one can hardly call it a general conference about racism if the sole topic of discussion is Israel. This whole discussion of "muzzling" and "censorship" only serves to make this conference just as bad as the previous one, because it makes this conference about Israel instead of about Racism.
In the end this is merely about politicians choosing the path of least resistance. They've come under scrutiny for allowing the last farce to take place under a UN flag, and as a result are trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It would be comical if it was not so sad -- they are unable to find a middle path between drunken binges of antisemitism and absolute abstinence on the subject of Israel. Neither one benefits Israelis or Palestinians, and ironically, neither one allows this conference to be about anything other than Israel. In fact, this conference can't even be about Palestine anymore owing to the jawing around Israel and "muzzling".
As a postscript, the UN is about symbolic gestures, as you say -- which makes it all the more inappropriate for a forum on racism to even consider including a speech by a holocaust denier on ... wait for it .. Israel's annual holocaust remembrance day. I think that it's a good idea for the UN to hold such forums, but there should be at least a token effort to start out from somewhere impartial.
I believe pigs will fly on the day that politicians choose to walk the hard middle path of frank discussion without obsession, and until then these conferences only serve to vilify Israel or "The Jooooooooooozzzeee!" as impediments to frank discussion which isn't really there in the first place.
Then, again, why attend a conference whose entire purpose is to justify-in-advance the destruction of your country and the eradication of your people?
Funny how Darfur got left off the agenda. Maybe the Tibetans would like someone to discuss THEIR Occupation by China. Gays in Iran might have something to contribute about discrimination (oops, forgot--there ARE no gays in Iran! Ahmadinijad said so!). Maybe some schoolgirls from Swat Valley and Afghanistan would like to address the conference on the denial of their rights to basic things like education and a choice about who they marry?
There is ample room for criticism of Israel, but the hypocrisy of Moslem dictatorships singling out Israel for criticism while burning down girl's schools, denying women fundamental rights, executing gays, oppressing their own minorities, committing or abetting genocide in the Sudan, and silencing political dissent through torture and imprisonment without representation makes the whole conference a farce.
Muzzlewatch? Surasky's blog? Contributor to the Electronic Intifada, founded by Al Awda members Arjan El-Fassed and Ali Abunimah? The Al Awda who knowingly promotes its agenda on neo-Nazi websites? Muzzlewatch is the reincarnation of Jewish Voices for Peace, an organization now in trouble with the IRS for its illegal political activities and in bed with Saudi money. And yes, there are people with Jewish names running JVP....the Palestinians have turds who collaborate with Israel; we have turds who collaborate with promotors of Jewish genocide.
Mo - This is what I say in the face of your cynicism.
Lessons of the Holocaust, man. This is what this is all about. No Aryan monkey is going to finish Hitler's job. No Arab or European monkey, for that matter. You're supporting a conference that exists solely for the purpose of promoting the goal of Final Solution. Bravo.
I agree that the more the Iranian prez spouts his nonsense, the deeper of a hole he digs to himself.
As to censorship on mere criticism of Israel per se - Pffffffffffft.
Mo-
Oh man...I just disagree on so many levels.
What the other commenters said. I just cannot get my head around it....
"There's a name for this: censorship."
Sure. I'll let Karl Popper argue the case for censorship:
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4
I'll let you ponder about the connection between intolerance and Ahmadinejad.
Oh, and FYI, racism goes both ways...or do I have to use my hasbara skills to make you see the light? I already have a very convincing video just out of youtube - still hot! Just say the word :)
Why is everybody angry on the agenda of this conference? Did it say that the "Jews" are racist?
Abu Sa'ar I wonder how does it serve the goals of the "Final-Solution"?
From my own opinion: Israel is a racist country. I find it hard, ver hard to refute this claim.
You might claim that israel actions are less brutal/racist than other countries. Well, Israel negative actions might take place at a slower rate, but they don't make them less cruel. And even if, Does this make Israel any tolerant?
Idan (Are you the Idan I have in mind?)
I generally agree. I would've liked the conference to have a real anti-racism agenda. But it seems to me right now that the pro-Israel lobbyists are at least as, if not more, guilty for hijacking it from its original purposes as are Israel's detractors.
Loved the "middle path between drunken binges of antisemitism and absolute abstinence on the subject of Israel." Right now, it seems that the second group has won - and in the fight between the two, the conference died. Shame, really.
As for UN responsibility - frankly, I'd have preferred if that conference hadn't taken place, rather than going on with this charade...
Aliyah06,
while most of your examples are outside the question of racism, even liberally defined, I would've still supported seeing them discussed in Geneva. Alongside Israel's racist behaviour vis-a-vis its ethnic minorities, as well as the populations under its boot.
And if you don't like JVP, fine. I think they're doing a lot of good work, especially with regards to Refusenisks. Attempting to shame them by association doesn't sound particularly cool to me.
Abu Sa'ar - you're back to blogging? Holy crap! It is a good day!
Though I don't see what the hell you're going with with the 'final solution'...
Gila I'm not surprised you disagree. :) But I surely would love to read your thoughts when you have a moment.
Pisa:
Actually your Popper quote got me thinking about the other big (though completely eclipsed) issue of the conference: insulting religions and freedom of speech. Another discussion, I guess.
Look, I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad, and I agree he's a particularly intolerant individual.
But instead of ruining the entire conference and blaming it - conveniently - on his shoulders, the world should've just discarded his nonsensical diatribes for what they are and gone forward with a decent anti-racism agenda.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the case.
Khaled:
While I agree with many comments I've heard that Israel isn't the sole criminal around the world - and hence singling it out makes little sense - I agree with you that it is guilty of racism as should be put on the spot for it.
Oh, and anyone - isn't Yom ha-Shoah tomorrow (tuesday) not today? 27 Nissan?
it began yesterday (monday) at 8:00PM
I'm sorry, but mentioning Kurds ,Palestine & Israel raise a flag in my mind.
Did any one notice the visit of Abu Mazen (Head of PA) to the Kurds in Iraq?
They have agreed to have some of the Palestinians in their lands.
According to my opinion, it is a very dangerous issue, blasting one of the major points of conflict between Israel & Palestine (the Right of Return of All 48's Arabs to their land).
And this is done by the PA (Palestinian Authority) itself.
Did anyone notice it?
Mo,
http://www.islamonline.net/English/IWitness/PenTalks/2008/10/10.shtml
Please read this article, take your time to think about it. This is obviously not israeli hasbara, the Elders of Zion don't own islamonline (yet!). Then we'll talk again about racism.
"Actually your Popper quote got me thinking about the other big (though completely eclipsed) issue of the conference: insulting religions and freedom of speech. Another discussion, I guess."
Religions and freedom of speech in the same sentence? Har.
"Look, I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad, and I agree he's a particularly intolerant individual."
A particularly intolerant individual backed by a totalitarian theocracy, oil money, his country's army, nuclear technology. Apocalypse now.
Durban I+II are like a PETA meeting where the main speakers are McDonald's owners.
I don't see what you all are complaining about. I think the conference was a huge success, everybody got what they wanted:
Arab countries got to feel they are strongly supporting the Palestinians while not having to actually do anything.
The Europeans got to be all neutral and understanding to both sides, while getting the bonus of being shocked at Ahmednijad's speech ("those Muslims...we really need to tighten immigration policy..")
Israel got to be victimized on the diplomatic court justifying all the paranoia we have on the Arabs while not having any actual discussion on the issues.
The Palestinians their favorite pass-time of basking in support while actually not really engaging Israel on any level
G
Mo and Khaled -
A collation of events:
Systematic demonization of Jews.
Organized boycotts of Jews.
Big Lies about Jews.
Official promotion of virulent, genocidal anti-semitism in dozens of states (starting, of course, with almost all Muslim ones).
Official calls for genocide of the Jews. By Aryans, among others.
A conference created solely to celebrate all of the above achievements belongs in Berlin circa 1938, doesn't it?
Luckily for us, this time the enemies are not good enough liars and they foolishly admit their plans and desires.
Most are "outside the question of racism"? The Tibetans are ethnically, culturally and linguistically far different from their Han Chinese occupiers; Black Christians and pagans of southern Sudan, and now Black Moslems of Darfur, are systematically exterminated by Arab Moslems of northern Sudan; sounds like racism to me. True, women are a different issue but since "racism" has been so broadly overstretched by the Left to include any discrimination, perhaps "anti-discrimination" is a better choice of words. The organizers just can't abandon the word "racism" though because it has such a virulent ring to it.
Jews aren't a race. Arabs aren't a race. The fact that we face discrimination from each other is not racism. It IS discrimination but you won't get rid of it until you get rid of the conflict itself. People tend to look with disfavor on members of a neighboring tribe who kill members of their tribe.
All in all, I think G nailed it--it's a sideshow now, totally irrelevant to promoting peace or understanding or ending discrimination or racism or misogynism, and Ahmedinejad's speech buried it stillborn.
JupiterOh, i hadn't followed! Abbas in Kurdistan. Yalla, why not. :)
Though I don't think he'll be trying to put some Palestinians there.. they have their own mess to deal with, plus the Palestinians will probably nibble him alive if he does that. :) Forced resettlement doesn't work with most people - and surely not with the Palestinians!
PisaWell i'll tell you one thing - i would have written a much better article. :) Not sure what ticked you off - the prophetic big war that will bring Armageddon, etc? Well, sure. And there are probably 12 different Messiahs supposed to come, and evangelical Christians believe that the rest of the world will convert or collapse (or something), and Apocalypse day will be a beautiful mess. So frankly I'll worry more about today and the foreseeable future than about the Apocalypse, with your permission. :)
Re: religion and freedom of speech: it was actually supposed to be discussed in Geneva this week.
And lol about the PETA meeting..
GNice!!
Well i don't think the Palestinians got anything out of it - and the big loser of this conference was... the conference. You know, talking about racism, apologising for centuries of slavery and shit?
Abu Oh, you don't like the comic? are you telling me that you don't actually have a collection of mini-skulls in your hat?
I'm not sure why you're conflating 1938 and 2009 but you need to snap out of this 'they want to genocide us' paranoia. I'm sure it serves to maintain a large conscript army and a huge nuclear arsenal and all, but overall you need to snap out of this wild fantasy.
Aliyah06 -as i wrote in my previous comment - I would've still supported seeing them discussed in Geneva. So we agree.
You're oversimplying Sudan - and the South actually started the war, with terrorist groups Anyanya being the foremost - which later evolved into the SPLA/M. There were accusations of extermination.
There is in Darfur though.
Interesting that you don't see Jews or Arabs as a race; I'm surprised. But I respect your opinion. We might want to get the opinion of the victims of this 'discrimination' in Israel though, whether they think they're discriminated against for racial reasons or otherwise.
Conference is pointless, I agree.
But it wasn't Ahmedinejad who buried it. The man declared he was coming 10 days ago. Israel has been lobbying to make the conference fails for months - got plenty of multilingual MFA Hasbara material I've been receiving on the subject... maybe I'll make another post of it. :)
Mo
"Not sure what ticked you off"
This ticked me off:
"She was surprised because of what I said so far, and she reminds me of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. I said “Yes.. I have to say that my country is living in a peace agreement with Israel for the mean time, but this exists only on papers. This couldn’t change the fact of hating Israel occupation and considering it the number one enemy of Egypt, and this is what they teach us at schools”.
"...this is what they teach us at schools". This is not what they teach us at schools.
You told Abu Saar "I'm not sure why you're conflating 1938 and 2009 but you need to snap out of this 'they want to genocide us' paranoia." I give up. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzK114-Q8zg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eisraellycool%2Ecom%2Fpage%2F2%2F&feature=player_embedded
Enjoy, and we'll talk again about paranoia later.
Mo;
While I agree the conference was a joke, I don't think "apologizing for centuries of Slavery and Shit", as you eloquently put it, would have made it any better.
Actually, having that would be just as meaningless as what was said in the conference today and would have probably gotten the French, US, and Belgium to boycott it..:)
A GOOD conference, in my opinion, should have focused on how the different countries can help to REDUCE racism and discrimination instead of just bleat about it. Of course it's hard to disconnect the discrimination issues from the conflicts, but still a lot can be done.
A few examples for the Israeli-Pa' conflict, just off the top of my head:
- Promote the meeting/ integration programs between Jewish-Palestinian youth (exist in Israel, privately and poorly funded, on a very small scale)
- Initiate programs which give advantage to joint Pal/Isr ventures, including Academia and business.
- Put pressure on BOTH Israel and PA to support bigger cooperation on grassroots and economic levels (I mean both sides get billions in aid, so the leverage is there).
You get the Idea - something constructive, not just jerking off.
Of course that means actual commitment to helping solving the conflicts, and who wants that?! Surely not the Arabs and Persians, and sadly, nor the Israelis and Palestinians…
G
Mohamed, Ahmedinejad is a simply a bigoted loudmouth, kind of like Dutch MP, Gert Wilders... I agree with you, the Durban conference seems like a waste of time.
But where do you see the censorship? The representatives simply left the room, they didn't force him to shut up did they? I'm just saying.
Helen
Pisa - Sometimes I think the only people who actually watch this channel are the memri and other similar organisations.
Should I respond with a link to a Mavet La-Aravim demonstration?
As for the 'teach us at schools' -- I don't know where this guy went to school (probably the right question would be when...) but they sure as hell don't teach us that. As a matter of fact, there's a yearly internal report of the Ministry of Education on the inclusion of the "culture of peace" - we all love each other in the middle east, basically - in school curricula - i know about the report because I know the people in charge of it. I actually have a copy of such a report (of a few years back).
As for what you teach at schools - let me see. Barely any mention of the 13 centuries of Muslim Palestine, nothing about Nakba, and that neighbouring Arabs are out to get you.
Pisa, I studied in Ulpanim in Jerusalem. My schoolbook had a map of Israel which absorbed the West Bank and Gaza into Israel. The description of the battle of Lifta - a village of Jerusalem - depicted the Arabs as pretty much rabid dogs, despite Lifta being actually the target of Irgun terrorist attacks - shooting at the coffee house, as a matter of fact.
With all due respect - you don't teach your children to love thy neighbour either. I don't claim we do, but you're at least as bad.
G - Ah, kind sir, that would be nice.
Apologising for slavery - which, you may recall, was in the Durban I agenda - would be better than what we now have anyway..
I like to think that there are people that actually would like the conflict solved. Whether they're in leadership positions or not - well, up to us citizens, no?
(oh my, am I sounding optimistic all of a sudden?)
Helenita,I didn't mean censorship wrt Ahmadinejad. (I would've enjoyed if someone had switched off his mic during his address, actually. :)
I was talking on a more general level, and how the entire build-up to the conference was about 'let's make sure no one messes with Israel' and in that, killed any potential debate about Israeli transgressions of human rights. That's what I meant by censorship - of the debate.
"Barely any mention of the 13 centuries of Muslim Palestine, nothing about Nakba, and that neighbouring Arabs are out to get you."
My nephew hates history but tells me that 13 centuries of Muslim Palestine IS covered, but very generally. Liberal arts here aren't nearly as well covered as science, math and tech stuff. Arabic is mandatory, he says--he's taking Arabic and English. The Naqba, after much controversy, is now in school texts, thanks to Yuli Tamir. "[N]eighbouring Arabs are out to get you." -- they're not? We covered this at Gila's place [grin]. Truth is a defense. And yes, 22 Arab countries -- Palestine counts.
Mo
We'll never agree on any subject regarding Israel vs. Arab/Muslim world. Maybe I'll just learn arabic to be able to read and hear the arab media for myself - no Memri or youtube involved. Then we'll see. Although, judging by the recent developments in the ME, farsi would be a better choice...
Mo -
Come on, you're undermining the cause here. What, we're supposed to believe that once Israel is destroyed we'll be "resettling the East"? And they'll give us jam before loading us onto the cattle cars?
Fool me once, shame on me, ya Mo. Try to fool me again and I just happen to have nuclear weapons ready. Calling it a "wild fantasy" is just not enough to cover for the would-be-final solvers who can't even utilize a uniform policy of deception; Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, Fateh - their calls for genocide are just the most documented.
"you don't teach your children to love thy neighbour either. I don't claim we do, but you're at least as bad" The day we have a Samir Kuntar of our own; the day we have a national holiday for Samir Kuntar; the day we name schools and streets after Baruch Goldstein; the day we define hero as "someone who tried to kill Arabs under any circumstances"; the day we - as a people - rejoice in the death of Arabs; then we might be able to start making comparisons.
See above, Mo. The policy of deception just doesn't work as well for the Arabs. Probably a cultural thing, not organized enough.
Yalla, khalas with this.
Alright Mo.
Abu Saar, some settlers have made a shrine out of Goldstein grave, and he is considered a hero in some circles. An you're a guy who've expressed satifaction about the sufferings of all Gazans, and I've also seen some of the other stuff you're written.
I know you're a unhinged hater but at least you could try and be less self righteous.
Helen
Pisa and Abu SaarAre you freakin' kidding me?! There are numerous Israeli forums/websites/officials/rabbis/regional councils that constantly incite hatred.
Does this fresh article mean anything to you? What about the lovely comments at the bottom of the page? Do you listen to Arutz Sheva or the Shomron regional council?
While our stupid terrorists say "Slaughter them".... You end up saying "Strip, Starve and suffocate them".... This is the real difference.
Helen -
I promised Mo I won't abuse you here. Sorry, love, but even begging for it won't help.
Khaled -
We both know it's incomparable. But I have no patience for this argument again: I had it a thousand times. Usually it ends up with me figuring out once again why the sitra akhra is so bloody unreasonable :)
As for the article - while I disagree with the minister's form, I certainly do agree with the notion. Mazen is an anti-Israeli terrorist supporter, as he proved during Operation Cast Lead. Sakhnin should not be a part of Israel, it's enemy territory. And open terrorist supporters calling the destruction of Israel (see my previous comments about genocide) should not be mayors in Israel.
It's unfortunate that we replaced a government of worms with a government of puppies (running around with much enthusiasm and not enough thought).
Who knows, though, maybe it's for the best - it might bring stuff into open and force a solution when current pretense of "coexistence" becomes untenable. Here's to hoping it won't hurt too much.
Aliyah06 - Alrighty then! One Israeli recognising Palestine! Only 6,999,999 to go! :)
Interesting, you're teaching me something here. I did know there was some arabic taught in middle school - and I believe it's optional in high school and kids generally choose spanish or something.
And, all things considered - Arabic is, after all, an official language of the State. It's suprising it isn't more used or taught - in another bilingual state I am familiar with, Belgium, knowing both French and Dutch is a prerequisite for a government employment in the capital.
And, seriously - no, they're not out to get you. :)
Pisa Someday we might. :) But we don't have to agree, dear - that's the beauty of it. Wouldn't as fun if we did. :-)
Btw, i wasn't saying the translation was bad, it's just that this kind of clips I only see or hear of through detractors of Palestine or Islam or whomever is being dissed, which is quite telling of the content..
Helen You beat me to it. I'll add that the many many current and past MKs and mainstream politicians that are Kach former members of sympathisers (Foreign Minister Lieberman? Marzel? Feiglin and his Manhigut buddies? The list goes on...) - Kach being a terrorist group, even by US definition - is a good reflection of the widespread acceptance for Arabophobia (look, a new word!).
Abu Sa'ar - Ah, your cynicism is a treat. :)
And regarding your comment that they're not comparable, a question for you. Do you not think that the blockade of Gaza is offensive and harmful action? I believe you do - (and you agree with the blockade, which is not my issue).
What I don't understand then is why the Israeli society doesn't it see it as such. You guys act surprised (or perhaps genuinely are) when there is a backlash - physical or diplomatic - vis-a-vis the blockade or such long term action. Why is that? How is it covered in Israeli media, if at all?
BTW - I googled sitra akhra and finding definition of hell and 'other side' - though something tells me you are referring to the political left? :)
Khaled
I could give you countless examples of arab/muslim forums and articles that constantly incite hatred.
This is not what we're here for.
I believe that the real reason most of us are here is that we've had enough of exactly this kind of forums and articles, and are looking for a way out. Trying to understand each other is a first step, and Mo is kind enough to provide us with the means to do that (btw, Mo, this is what learning arabic would allow me - a better understanding - I trust Memri with the translation).
Khaled, I'm not playing "who's the victim". I'm looking for facts. I don't believe all arabs/muslims are evil, or all israeli jews evenly divided between Arutz Sheva and some "Strip, starve and suffocate them" group. Do you judge the US by the forums of Ron Paul supporters?
Helen
I didn't promise Mo anything. If someone is an unhinged hater here, that's you. You take "some settlers", one criminal, and a grave, mix it, shake it, and voila...this is Israel! What would people like you do without Goldstein?
(courtesying) Ah, but it's always a pleasure to provide a forum for people to verbally beat each other up, then agree on what I say. :)
PS - don't fully trust memri with the translation. pmw does a better job. Memri translates selectively at times.
And either way, I'd love to have this conversation with you in Arabic one day.;)
Pisa, you're a moronic hater whose hippocracy is astounding. You fail to see the hatred of Abu Saar, nor do you seem to understand Israel's responsibility. Fair enough, it's everybody's right to be a moron, but I'll suggest you go and take care of your cat instead,she might be interested in you.
Helen
Mo -
Yes, they ARE out to get us. That's what this is all about :)
And as for the Gaza blockade - it's simple. We deny them materials they can weaponize. Not thoroughly enough, but what can you do with people who, when given lighting poles, make rockets out of them? I like living, man. I even hope to live until the Singularity. Not blockading Gaza significantly harms my chances of living to 200 or so. The discomfort inflicted on my enemies in the process of preventing my death is an acceptable, if lamentable, price.
The question of "backlashes" is thoroughly discussed in the media. The gamut of opinion runs from "because we're evil" to "because they're evil" and includes pretty much everything in between. The consensus seems to be that the backlashers are denying us our right to life (for various reasons - from hatred to expediency).
As for sitra akhra - it is a pun of sorts. Sitra akhra is Aramaic for "other side", but in Judaism it refers to the evil part of creation. Or something like that, I am a but fuzzy on Jewish mythology :)
BTW -
It is interesting to note that when I abused Helen you rose to her defense. And yet now you acquiesce to such uninspired belligerence... How very amusing :)
Despite of my support in the establishment of a Palestinian State, it's hard not to have hard feelings when you hear the Palestinian representative in the 2nd Durban Conference.
The foreign minister of the Palestinian authority, in the 2nd Durban conference gave an anti-Israeli speech and still he doesn't see any contradiction between making a positive atmosphere for negotiations for peace and continuation of the incitements and the defamations. The Palestinian foreign minister accused the Israeli occupation in " worst violation of human rights", and with Israel being " the most ugly face of racism and racial discrimination."
The Palestinian foreign minister thinks that the phenomenon of human rights violation and racism in Israel is the worst in the world. According to his version, the human rights situation and the racism in Sudan and Iran, for example, is much better. And the whole world is listening and do nothing.
"Betzelem" organization reported that 4,792 Palestinians were killed by Israel between 29.09.2000 - 26.12.2008, i.e. in 8 years 4,792 Palestinians were killed.
On the other hand, in Sudan hundred thousands were killed, and nevertheless, to the Palestinian foreign minister the blood of 4,792 Palestinian is more ruddy than the blood of hundred thousands black Sudanese that were murdered by Arab Muslims Sudanese. Is it correct that the reason of 4,792 dead Palestinians is more severe 'coz the black Sudanese were killed by Arabs, and the Palestinians were killed by Jews-Israelis?
In other words, the identity of the killing executer and not the amount of the dead determines the severity scale of human rights violation. The Palestinian authority representative, who uses pompous words about the will of his government in peace with Israel doesn't hesitate to incite against it and to accuse it in " the worst violation of human rights."
Every person blood is precious, but you expect from a foriegn minister to say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. According to every objective criterion whats going on in Sudan is several times severe from whats going on in the territories.
The Palestinian authority is using a ild incitement against Israel and the Jews in its educational system, in its media and its outrage propaganda in the global media. (some groups in Israel do the same) The Palestinian authority together with the Arab states and Iran delegitimizes Israel, in every international forum. Now, tell me how this is going with peace negotiations?
I wanna make clear that I don't belong to the Israli right wing, on the contrary. I support the 2 states solution. I just like to express the hard feelings of those who support the 2 states solution when we see, hear, read the incitement and the defamations against Israel.
Abu Sa'ar,I believe I told you that before - they're not out to get you - actually, they generally don't give a tiny rat's ass about you. Honestly.
Blockading Gaza is in nothing a defense operation. Are you being facetious or actually serious??? It's an offense one. And, fyi, the materials you deny them include not only food, medicine, services, fuel, but shit like jam and biscuits. And, btw, they should be allowed to import cement and iron if they want to. Just as much as you are allowed to buy them.
the siege is hateful, Abu, not defensive. It is absolutely unjustifiable.
As for uninspired belligerence - I asked you to stop when you were going overboard in my opinion, and especially carrying over irrational hostility from previous conversations; that got on my nerves.
A little bit of swearing is usually fine though. :)
AnonymousHmm, many points to address...
and btw, you may want to add the extra 1300 dead in Gaza to your stats.
Look, it's very simple. For the Palestinian delegate, Israel is the worst regime in the world. For the Tibetan, it's China.
If you want to look at numbers, then I'm sure Congo will beat them both (and Darfur).
So it isn't about whether they were killed by Jews or Arabs. The Congolese were killed by neither and no one speaks of them... And do you hear about what happens in Nigeria, in Somalia, in the Central African Republic?
And I'm afraid that you should expect a politician to say what his government wants to say. That applies to all ministers really. The only people who say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as you hope are children under 6 - when they are coerced by their parents. :)
You very well know that Israel conducts very large human rights violations.
I don't need you to answer. But we both know what happens in our respective house.
As for the negotiations - ah, my good friend, it isn't the declarations of the Irani or the Palestinian delegates in Geneva that will change it. The ball is in the Israeli court.
And I'm not throwing responsibility; far from it. Simply acknowledging who has the most power in this 'process'.
Thanks for dropping by!
its getting a bit late here, so I just drop few sentences.
The number of dead Palestinian I referred was till the end of 2008. And yes, you're right I had to add also the 1200 Palestinians who were killed in the last operation in Gaza.
I don't know you and where are you from (first time I'm reading your blog, and enjoy it) but its not only the Palestinian foreign minister that accuses Israel in the worst violation of human rights, and incite against Israel.....Most if not all the Arab/Muslim regimes do it.....so maybe for you it's very simple................sorry, my dear friend...not to me.
Can't keeps my eyes open :-)
Mo
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/who-walked-who-applauded.html
Mo -
Gaza is run by a democratically elected genocidal terrorist organization. This is not a problem for you, I know. But for all I care, genocidal barbarians' rights are trumped by mine, and harming them to prevent attainment of their goals is justifiable. We are not allowing them iron or cement because they use them to build tunnels and bunkers. And I think it's foolish that we're still supplying them with free food, electricity, fuel, medical care, etc.
Do you honestly believe we're investing so much effort, money and lives into this refuse pile called Gaza because we're evil? Why would we want to waste anything preventing them things they can't use to harm us?
Told you, man, you'll have to come up with some extraordinary bullshit to talk us into genociding ourselves. This just ain't cutting it. I will have to grade your replies in Goebbels. Goebbels is a grading system for genocide concealment while striving for it. Reference as follows:
Grade of 1 is the level of Hitler's psychotic rants towards the end;
Grade 50 is Arafat's lies in the 90s;
Grade 60 or so is most of Leftist academia (assorted Khalidis and Chomskys and such);
Grade 100 is the Nazi public policy, both foreign and domestic, until 1941.
An alternative grading system is in Arafats: Arafat-- (A--) to Arafat (A) to Arafat++ (A++). Think of each mark in Arafat system as 20 points Goebbels.
Claiming they don't give a rat's ass about killing us flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you're not willing to make simple logical connections, just read the Hamas charter. They spell it out nicely. I am surprised you're not trying to convince us to cut down our Gharkad trees. Very shoddy, I wouldn't give this effort more than 40 G (A-).
"You very well know that Israel conducts very large human rights violations" - no more and possibly less than your average post-industrial state. Which makes whichever "violations" we conduct a tiny percentage of the average violations in pre-industrial societies (like Arab states, for instance). Your attempt to create some sort of an equivalence here is more like what you need to hasten the Final Solution, but still coarse - your technique needs refining. 55 G (A).
" ...it isn't the declarations of the Irani or the Palestinian delegates in Geneva that will change it. The ball is in the Israeli court" - this one is also quite weak, but you could probably dress it up in more bullshit to increase effectiveness. It doesn't take prodigious reasoning faculties to understand the following:
If A says: "I want to destroy B because I object to their existence"; and B says: "I just want to be left alone by A"; then the "ball" in with A, since B can do only two things to change the situation - die or destroy A.
So this argument doesn't work as well outside Munich's beer halls without additional bullshit to prevent that thought from coalescing. 30 G (A--).
Oh, your Gaza blockade effort is pretty good. I'd say around 60 G (A+) - you just have to make it more emotionally appealing without making it too blatant.
I'm sorry Mohamed, I know you don't like too much hostility. What can I say? His stupidity forces me to answer him, it's not my fault. But after this, I'll leave him alone, I promise. :)
A few points, Abu Saar.
"If A says: "I want to destroy B because I object to their existence"; and B says: "I just want to be left alone by A"; then the "ball" in with A, since B can do only two things to change the
situation - die or destroy A."
Useless statement, since it overlooks B's occupation of A's land.
"die or destroy A." Another empty statement. Since Hamas so integrated within the population, you can't practically destroy them without becoming Serbs or Hutus, and since Israel is a democratic state (even if you yourself don't grasp the concept of democracy) as well as receiving a lot of international attention, your hope of destroying Hamas (and Fateh) will stay just that, a hope. Israel will be forced to withraw from the WB and end the Siege on Gaza. It's either that or an apartheid state, or binational state. Either way, you'll lose.
"And I think it's foolish that we're still supplying them with fIsrael free food, electricity, fuel, medical care, etc."
Two points, one you are not giving them food, the food is from the UN.
Two, you forgot the water, Racoon, I'm sure you think the water should be cut off as well. After all, "The Hutu should stop having mercy on the Tutsi." I'm sure you'd agree with this Hutu statement.
And now I'm done,
Helen
Mo -
This is what your hypocrisy brings. Now I am again being verbally assaulted by... err... I am sorry, I cannot truthfully define the nature of my attacker - I promised not to abuse Helen.
What an amusing demonstration, though, I hope the symbolism here is not lost on you.
I wonder whether you anticipated that she'll continue with these pathetic attacks. And if you did - are you more cynical than hypocritical or vice versa? :)
BTW, no offense intended, ya Mo. When I say hypocrite I don't mean it as insult.
More selective ideological word games, Helen:
""If A says: "I want to destroy B because I object to their existence"; and B says: "I just want to be left alone by A"; then the "ball" in with A, since B can do only two things to change the
situation - die or destroy A."
Useless statement,(you said) since it overlooks B's occupation of A's land.****
Except that according to Hamas, the PLO, Fatah and their spin-offs, it's ALL their land, so even Tel Aviv and Petach Tikveh need to be "lberated" from "occupation."
You overlook the fact that Fatah was formed in 1954 and the PLO was formed in 1964. Both groups' stated goals were and are the destruction of Israel -- and this was before the 1967 war which resulted in the occupation. (And before Hamas who has the identical goal and doesn't try to disguise it).
So A has intended, and still intends to destroy B, and did since BEFORE the occupation of the WB and Gaza.
Hence, your facile statement wholly overlooks the Palestinian dynamic which has been to wipe out Israel from the beginning.
The "Occupation" is just a red-herring for stupid ultra-liberal Europeans who think we'll all sit down and sing Kumbaya together as soon as the "Occupation" stops. Yeah, you're the same folks who served up Czechoslovakia piece-meal to Hitler in the name of "peace."
Ahhh, western Europeans--gotta love 'em. Always ready to cede someone else's real estate at the first sign of conflict so their oil supply, cafe latte, bank account and neurotic need for approval from their former colonies isn't upset.
Please be so good as to solve your White Colonial Guilt complex on someone else's conflict.
Helen
You could bother to check facts before you post. Not that facts ever stood in your way...
You said "Two, you forgot the water, Racoon, I'm sure you think the water should be cut off as well."
Tell me, what do you think about the United Nations?
From NY Times, an article by a former UN security officer:
"In 1995, for example, the water supply for Mogadishu, the capital, was shut off by the United Nations humanitarian agencies until a hostage who worked for another aid organization was released. On the first day of the shutoff, the women who collected water from public distribution points yelled at the kidnappers; on the second day they stoned them; on the third day they shot at them; on the fourth day, the hostage was released."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19long-1.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
Should Israel do what UN aid organizations do? Isn't Gilad Shalit worth a UN worker? What do you say, Helen?
You got some chutzpah, Aliyah, mother, historian, laywer.... I'm a white colonist? That's almost sweet.
Thing is, B's got all the power. B continues to build all over A's land, thus in practise destroying B's chances of a state. No matter how much A whines over B's statements and actions,no matter how much A claims "to just want to be left alone" A still refuses to leave B alone, A is still an occupier, still a settlement builder, not to mention the seige on some of B's land, not to mention killings of B's civilians. A could withdraw to the 67 borders and build their wall along these lines,or offer land swaps, A has even been offered normalisation by B's supporters, but A insist on dragging their feet. So the story continues.
Your assertion that all palestinian organisations want to wipe you off the map, Aliyah, is your way of dealing with your
guilt komplex. It could be that or you just want to put me, the European, in my place. I've read some of your posts to Mo, and it'd seem that you're not as unreasonable as you're pretending to be.
Regardless, this concerns Europe as well. For one thing, we, along with the US, usually ends up paying for your treatment of the palestinians. I mean, it's all very well to start a war, but someone else has to pay, so you're making it our problem too. And personally I'm a liberal, so I'm against oppression. I know your'e trying to make me feel guilty, because of Europe's history, but I'm more concerned about what happens now. ( as opposed to you, the endless victim)And when bad shit happens, like your treatment of the Palestinians, the war on Iraq, the Tibet situation, I care. So no,we'll not leave you alone until you've reach a fair peace with the palestinians. This would be a good reason for you to have a change of heart and join Peace Now, not only will you have peace, but people like me, latte drinking, liberal Europeans will forget about you. :)
Have a nice day, miss Aliyah.
You could check some facts yourself, Pisa. I heartily recommend Lords of the Land by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar.
I'm not a fan of the UN, but why're you asking?
Pisa I understand that you're a warm supporter of the siege, that's punishing a whole population. I'm not. First, obviously it's extremely immoral. Second, if you want to get him out, the siege (that punishes a whole population.)is probably not the best way, since he's still captive.
"...One is to negotiate with the kidnappers to gain a conditional release of the hostages. The other is to stage a violent rescue in which kidnappers, hostages and rescuers alike all run the risk of losing their lives."
I think you should try the first option again, since you don't seem to be able to pull off the second one.
Helen
"...could withdraw to the 67 borders and build their wall along these lines,or offer land swaps.."
Olmert just offered exactly that. It was refused by Abu Mazen. The sticking point wasn't the land, the settlements (which Olmert offered to dismantle many of) but the Right of Return. Unless we cede ALL of Jerusalem and absorb the stateless descendents of people who allege to be Palestinian refugees, no deal, according to the PA.
So, you see, when you negotiate and the other party keeps changing their demands (settlements weren't even an issue at Oslo--it's just the latest whine) that's a strong indicator that the Palestinians aren't dealing in good faith and don't really want a 'peace settlement' -- they want the entirety of the land absent any Jewish sovereignty.
"Your assertion that all palestinian organisations want to wipe you off the map, Aliyah, is your way of dealing with your
guilt komplex. "
Cute. I don't have a guilt complex, which is spelled with a "c" by the way. Don't believe me--go read the charters of these organizations rather than deny facts and history. I'm sure you won't--like most Far Left idealogues, you refuse to read or accept anything that might disabuse you of your own ideology. That's why so many people think that people like you are morally corrupt and intellectually dishonest.
"Regardless, this concerns Europe as well." NO, it DOESN'T!! If you want to contribute to a charity, for example, Oxfam, that doesn't give you the right to RUN Oxfam. This is just more colonialism, albeit the pocket-book variety. Europeans have NO rights here, and since you mucked up the entire Middle East after WWI, and continue to muck it up with your arrogant interference today, kindly butt out. Humanitarian aid is great, but quit dictating policy.
"it's all very well to start a war, but someone else has to pay, so you're making it our problem too." Nice touch of sarcasm, but factually inaccurate. WE accepted the 1948 partition--the Arabs didn't. The first shot fired was by the Arabs. What the historically challenged such as yourself don't understand is that it's the SAME war---it's been on-going since 1948. With recesses.
"the siege, that's punishing a whole population....First, obviously it's extremely immoral."
This is hilarious, coming from someone whose country invaded, occupied, imposed martial law, suspended civil liberties, and totured suspected "terrorists" in response to some crude home-made bombs placed in a few of London's garbage cans. Go peddle your hypocritical morality to the Irish, whose country you're still occupying.
Abu Sa'ar:Good one with the ratings!
I like the Arafats - reminds of high-school physics. Amperes, Arafats...
Didn't Amperes measure electric Resistance? :-)
Allow me to reciprocate and offer you the BullShit (BS) rating, which will rank everything you write from BBS (bad bullshit) to SFBS (seriously fucking bullshit). :)
Or, better - i'll rate you in AbuSa'ars! From 1AS to 10AS.. Sounds better, doesn't it?
More serious things now.
Your A and B simplification is interesting but very erroneous, as it is based on a false premise: "B just wants to be left alone by A". This supposes no hostility on the part of B, a fact we both know to be wrong. Anything you build on that is therefore mere sophism.
Oh, and no offense taken - I appreciate you writing that.
Aliyah06:
My dear, you're stretching some arguments too much. You know better..
First though, I'm amused you're blaming Britain's sins on Helen.
Primarily because she's not English; but mainly i find it hilarious when Israelis diss Britain, which effectively allowed and facilitated for them to create a country.
Olmert offering 67 borders? Huh?
Settlements were discussed at Oslo, but agreed to be left for the 'permanent settlement' issues. One of many ways in which the Palestinians were had. And while unwritten in the text of the agreement, it was agreed that their expansion would be halted, which never happened - a mere slowdown for a year, followed by a frantic rhythm of construction.
Hmm, what else.. 'Arabs didn't accept the partition'. (which was in 47 not 48, btw). Of course they didn't. Why would anyone agree to giving away 55% of their land, I ask you? Makes no sense. Retrospectively we now that they would've been better off agreeing, but then they gave the only logically acceptable answer.
Same war since 1948: now THAT is an interesting argument and discussion.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree, but it's interestingly telling of your thought process (and i say that very respectfully).
I'll gloss over 1967, 1973 and Camp David and their impact on the recalibration of the Palestinian national liberation goals, but essentially during the 1980 the Palestinian representative organisations realised that their dreams of regaining control over the entire ol' country was out of the window. The Madrid and Oslo charades were the formal expression of this realisation. And since then, the Palestinians officially locked themselves into the view of Palestine as being the 'East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza' combo. More importantly though, they publicly did away with the old dream, recognised Israel's establishment on what was their country and told their 'constituents' (they were unelected but nevertheless recognised as representative) that the end goal was a new, very reduced one.
As a matter of fact, I view the latter event - the intra-Palestinian decision, if you will -far more important than signing the Oslo agreement, which really gave them nothing. And now, 16 years later, we have generations growing up under this new 'end goal' definition.
Sure, dreams of Yaffa's oranges still exist, but it's mainly romantic.
Same for the right of return, which is primarily about the 'right' than the 'return' - that is, the recognition of the right rather than its implementation. I'm amused how Israelis fail to understand that.
As for whether Europeans should have a say or not - years ago the world developed what we called 'droit d'ingerence' (roughly 'the right to interfere', but you'll have to pardon me for being familiar with the terms in French), with respect to situations of severe human rights violations; in the nineties this 'droit' became a 'devoir' ('duty') to interfere, at the impulse of people like Bernard Kouchner (then of Medecins Sans Frontieres). That the party guilty of such violations refuses this interference is of course expected.
Europeans have a duty to have a say, and actually to be more proactive than they currently are.
PisaWhat Israel is doing is worse than what the UN has done in this particular case. First one lasted 3 days, the other 2 years. (perhaps it's time to recognise that it failed? Unless of course you admit that the blockade is just purely punitive..)
And i won't even begin to detail the blockade.
And anyways, anything that amounts to mass punishment is wrong and condemnable. I am appalled that you approve of it. What the UN did was very wrong.
As for the 'isn't Gilad Shalit worth a UN worker?' -
I am tempted to tell you that one was trying to alleviate the suffering of poor people, the other was a soldier, so they're not the same. Nevertheless, both are someone's child and as such should be home with their families, so yes.
Nevertheless I'll draw your attention to the importance of UN personnel safety, and what it can mean to aid recipients. Harming UN staff can lead to entire programme be shut off, for funding and personnel to be withheld. Most peacekeepers were withdrawn from Rwanda in 1994 after 9 Belgian peacekeepers were murdered by the genocidaires, who knew what they were aiming for. As such, the urgency of freeing the UN worker is unlike any kidnapping situation.
Dear Aliyah
Obviously, we're not going to get any further. Let me just point out that Olmert only made vague promises, and he made the biggest when he was when was a lame duck. The settlements keeps growing and growing. Second, the Brits doesn't occupy Ireland anymore. They made peace by talking to the IRA. And frankly, going on about 48 is pathetic. As I said, you do live in the past, and you still seem to believe you're a victim.
Like I said before,I believe we have a right, a duty to interfere. I understand you don't, you want to continue to be the masters in the ME. Perhaps you actually want the settlers to continue to colonize the West Bank? But since Israel continues to violate human rights, we wont live you alone. That's not colonialism, that's standing up for the oppressed. We should be even more involved. It's also striking that you don't see the US (and the religious right)interference as colonialism. I guess it's ok to interfere as long as you're from the right, right? :) So, until Israel cease to be a occupier, consider our butts in.
Have a nice day again, and feel free to correct any spelling mistakes. Also,is my grammar correct?
Helen
Mo
"And anyways, anything that amounts to mass punishment is wrong and condemnable. I am appalled that you approve of it."
Once again you put words into my mouth. I never said what I think about this issue, I just asked Helen what she/he/it thinks about it ("it" sounds right - i'll stick to it). Helen never answered, just did what you did, automatically assumed I was approving of it. And your attempt to prove that UN aid workers are more important than Gilad is pathetic. I could use it to "prove" how more important israeli jews are than palestinian arabs - you know, the cell phones, intel, stuff like that. It's exactly the same kind of argument, and I'm - what was that word? - "appaled" that you would use it.
I mostly agree with Aliyah06. I would recognize the "droit d'ingerence" if it really was about human rights, however it's more about the balance of power in the ME and each country is pursuing its own interests, so please don't shove the Europeans down our throats. It's all warm and fuzzy when you use nice words like "human rights", only some are considered more human than others...depending on how useful they can be. Just have a look at China and Tibet, UK and Ireland (and the walls of Belfast), Spain and the Basques. Does Israel have the same droit d'ingerence with those countries?
Mo, I was born and raised in a communist country. I know the rhetoric, I know how empty it usually is, I know how it's used to turn reality upside-down. I know how seductive it is, too. And destructive. If you'd ever be able to make me change my mind, it will be despite of the rhetoric, not because of it. You're very intelligent when you're not doing leftist hasbara.
Mohammed, my friend: Haaretz, December, 2008 -- "Under the proposal, Israel would return to the Palestinians 93percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.
Olmert presented Abbas with the proposal as part of an agreement in principle on borders, refugees and security arrangements between Israel and a future Palestinian state.
In exchange for West Bank land that Israel would keep, Olmert proposed a 5.5 percent land swap giving the Palestinians a desert territory adjacent to the Gaza Strip. [The additional land would be a land corridor connecting the WB and Gaza, something the Palestinians never had).
"The Israeli proposal is not acceptable," Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continuity, with holy Jerusalem as its capital, without settlements, and on the June 4, 1967 boundaries."
Under Olmert's offer, Israel would keep 7 percent of the West Bank, while the Palestinians would receive territory equivalent to 5.5percent of West Bank." Olmert later amended this so that the ultimate land swap would amount to 99%. I'm sure, given any encouragement, he would have gone for 100%.
"Why would anyone agree to giving away 55% of their land, I ask you? Makes no sense. " --Because it wasn't any more "their" land than it was "ours" up until the partition. There was no "Palestine" as a country, unless you count "Palestine in Trans-Jordan" which already ate up 80% of Mandatory Palestine--the 20%remaining was former Ottoman Turkish land, ruled first by Turks then by the British, inhabited by multiple peoples, two groups of which wanted their own nations here--and the UN Solomonically divided the land on the basis of demographics, fully intending that each new nation contain a minority of the other. With respect, your contention makes no sense--it's as if Belgium can assert a right to the Congo because Belgium once ruled it; the Arabs have an absolute right to rule all here because once there was an Arab-ruled entity here? That's no more sensible than the Israeli religious extremists who justify the Greater Israel argument on the grounds that King David once ruled everything from the River to the Sea. They're not "giving up their land" -- for the sake of peaceful codevelopment they're giving up a claim to ALL of British Palestine because the Jews who lived also here deserved a nation of our own.
I would agree with you that Madrid and Oslo are charades, but probably for different reasons. Dahlan just two weeks ago stated that Fatah does not recognize Israel, and Abbas has made it official that the Palestinians will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. If 21 other states can be recognized as Arab and Islamic, why can't the PA leave us our strip of Jewish state? The paranoid among us (that's most of us) believe it's because the PA plans to flood Israel with refugees, then force an Anschluss with Palestine, making us a minority at the mercy of Hamas, Fatah, et al. Just a slower genocide than Iran's Bomb.
We have no reason to believe that the recognition of the right of return is merely romantic--it sounds like a reality when voiced by Palestinian refugees. Nor would I agree that the Palestinians have greatly reduced their expectations--that public disavowal of Old Dream nonetheless doesn't jibe with classes in Jenin where children still recite 'from the River to the Sea' mantras.
"i find it hilarious when Israelis diss Britain, which effectively allowed and facilitated for them to create a country."...hmm, Britain in its usual two-faced colonial fashion made one promise with the Balfour Declaration then when strategic interests became more important, did everything it could to kill that promise and the people promised to.....Britain handed over ALL of the Taggart forts to Arab forces; trained and led the Arab Legion; promised King Abdullah that Jaffa would be Jordan's seaport if he played along with British aspirations to wipe out the new Jewish state. The British evacuated any Jewish neighborhood or village the Arabs rioted over (Hebron was one example but Jews were forcibly evacuated from Safed and Gaza and other places); the British turned over arms to the Arab forces and seized arms from Jewish forces....we see the British quite a bit differently than how you described them above. The most appalling thing about the British was their reason for not bombing the rail lines leading to the gas chambers: "But what would we do with the survivors?" the Home Office complained. Nazi genocide was okay because it solved Britain's "Jewish problem."
You are quite right about devoir d'ingerence -- my objection is not to the principle but to the manner in which it is applied by white European neocolonialists like Helen (who is British by choice if not by birth). I never heard Helen and her ilk outraged over suicide bombings of civilian buses or pizza parlors in Israel; I never heard their outrage over missiles, rockets or mortars raining down on civilians in Israel. What I heard was half-assed justifications that it was all okay because it's "resistance" to "Israeli oppression," which reverses facts. The occupation is the result of the PLO's and Arab League's incessant war (yes, we do see it as one unending series of attempts to reverse the results of 1948 and destroy us and our state); the continued occupation is the result of the Khartoum Conference and the refusal of the Palestinians to even START negotiating seriously (hey, Olmert's latest offer may not have been perfect but even the Saudis said, "it's a start--talk!"); the separation wall/barrier/fence is the result of a wave of suicide bombings; the border closure of Gaza is the result of Hamas' coup d'etat (the border agreements are with the PA, and Hamas no more recognizes Israel than Israel recognizes Hamas). So, yes, the ideological bleeding hearts like Helen bleed for the Palestinians (as do many Israelis, although she would scoff at that) but snicker at the Palestinian murder of Jews, with snide remarks about how Israelis deserved it because (insert any excuse here--Israel's existence, settlements, 'apartheid', occupation of the WB, etc.).
Have you seen anyone in London or other trendy western cities getting all riled up over Tamil rights? Or taking sides for or against the Sinhalese? Or even noticing the recent slaughter in the Congo? Calling for a boycott of Russian goods in response to their slaughter of Moslem Chechens, who also seek their own sovereignty as they once had? Having mass demonstrations in front of the Sudanese embassy with signs saying "we are all Darfurians!"?
No. Their outrage is reserved only for Israel. It gives them a politically correct and socially acceptable way to hate and demonize Jews.
So, the 'devoir d'd'ingerence' is a principled position to hold in general---but here it is a fig leaf used by certain Europeans to excuse their ingrained prejudices.
If you have the time, peruse this: http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html
Shabbat shalom/salaam for now--sarah
Helen--
"It's also striking that you don't see the US (and the religious right)interference as colonialism."
Oh DO stop putting words in other people's mouths. I didn't say this. For the record, I think US interference is every bit as bad as European....and if you were conversant at all with our history, you would know that the US couldn't care one whit about Israel until after 1967, when suddenly the US decided it needed a ME counterweight to Russia's colonization of Egypt and Syria (whatever else you think about Sadat, I applaud him for realizing that Russia was overrunning Egypt and booting them out).
Your rhetorical flourishes are nonsensical attempts to project what YOU think other posters think so you can knock down your own straw-man arguments. Your bias against Israel and its Jewish population is so blatant in this and other posts that it's useless to have a discussion with you. You seem incapable of approaching the subject with an open mind, and are interested only in promoting your "Israelis Are Evil-Palestinians Are Hapless Victims of Evil Israelis"-agenda instead of engaging in any constructive discussion of how we can solve this conflict. Flinging names from the Far-Left-List-of-Imprecations neither advances the cause of peace, or this discussion, nor impresses me much.
There is a difference between 'living in the past' and knowing history--a difference you clearly aren't conversant with because your grasp of history in our region (including 1948, and even before) is nil.
As you have a "duty to stand up for human rights" perhaps you'd like to do something about Hamas' targeting of civilian towns? Terrorizing a population of millions with randomly launched missiles? Or it's torture and execution of political prisoners? Or even about Gilad Shalit getting a visit from the Red Cross? Or, as I suspect, does your concern for human rights not extend to Jews?
BTW, the British Army is still in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is still occupied by, and run by and for English Protestant settlers. You don't seem to have any outrage over the huge cement walls that were built to keep Catholics under British/Protestant control, confined to their ghettoes in the interests of British security. There is a "peace agreement" which was abrogated several months ago with an IRA attack on a British barracks. Seems not everyone in Northern Ireland is content to leave Ulster under British occupation. You call it "peace" -- the indigenous Catholics whose land was stolen are simply exhausted, but some are continuing the resistance. [grin] So when an IRA bomb blows up your pizza parlor, pub or coffeehouse, DO come back to us here and pontificate about occupation and your concerns with it again. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter....and one man's occupation is another man's terror interdiction.
Aliyah06 -
Oh dear, I should've known you'd respond longly, I feel bad making you write all this!
Since I won't get around re-reading and replying until later tonight - shabbat shalom to you as well. :)
Pisa, I did answer. Just read the post.
Miss Nasty Piece of Work.
You can be neocolonialist ilk yourself. If you believe that the Palestinians had no more right to their country just because there was no country called Palestine, then you're a colonialist.
"Hate and demonize jews. " I see. You're accusing me of antisemitism. Call me a Hitler Jugend if you like,it sure as hell wont stop me from critizising your occupation.
Olmert's proposal was made when he was sure to loose power. During his term, the settlements increased. The PA called it an empty gesture, and so it was since a new election was about to be held, and this proposal would be useless, not to mention hard to implement because of your strange electorial system. And anyway, the new PM doesn't believe in a two states. I'm disgusted by the way you say "anschluss" re the Palestinian demand of right to return. They're nazist to, I guess? This is typical of vulgarian right wingers, you're making a mockery of the Holocaust in order to continue to oppress the Palestinians.
I know that there are Israeli "bleeding hearts" out there, as you call them, thank god. But they seem to be in the minority, while most Israelis seem to be like you. I'm not going to say anything about Palesinian terrorism, not to a person like you anyway.
You think the US involvement in the conflict is wrong? Then we do agree on something on this earth.
The rest of your post your usual nonsense - just because the PA and the Hamas is violating human rights, Israel's violation of human rights is somehow less serious. I can't debate with this, if you want to evade your responsibility because of what other groups do, go ahead. It wont change anything.
Regarding Northen Ireland, like I said, there's a fragile piece now, since Tony Blair was brave and intelligent enough to talk to the IRA. There is no terror, and the British Army do not kill any demonstrators, or any other civilians. And the IRA haven't blown up anything in years, since the peace, which gave some hope to the people, decreased the appeal the IRA had on particually youngsters. But if there is a terror attack, I guess you can have your laugh. Time will tell. Now, I hope I won't have to talk to you again.
Helen
Mohammed, my friend--thank you, and a shavua tov to you and yours.
Helen--Nice side-step on all the issues, especially the one about standing up for human rights: your comments indicate that you don't want to discuss it with me because the only human rights in the world you want to champion are Palestinian human rights--Israeli (or Kosovar, or Chechyn or Tibetan or Tamil, etc.) aren't even on your radar. Your hatred of Israel and Israelis is SO profound you can't even accord us the human rights you accord to the people trying to kill us.
My point about Northern Ireland, which you also sidestepped, is that it IS under British occupation, with a colony of settlers running it for British interests, and while you wax wroth over Israeli settlement in disputed areas (which we've already proved with Sinai and Gaza we're willing to evacuate for a chance at peace)you are totally blind to the hypocrisy of your on-going occupation of Ireland's northern province. More European hypocrisy.
And you totally missed my point---not that the Palestinians aren't entitled to a land of their own (they ARE!) but that we, also residents of this land, were equally entitled to sovereignty of our own. Our national rights did not deserve to be subordinated to some "Greater Syria" or "Caliphate" or "Arab League" demand by the Arab population both in and out of Palestine, and pimped by British interests in maintaining control over ME oil, any more than Palestinian national rights should be subordinated to some Biblical hysteria over "Greater Israel." That doesn't make us colonialists--it makes us people willing to stand up for and if necessary die for, our right to exist in safety. But if calling me and us names makes you feel better about your twisted interpretations of what I say or what Israelis think, well, it's a free country, and you have a constitutional right to be childish.
Mo -
An article, just for you.
The bottom line of my argument is simple: you cannot convince us that we're safe in the face of overwhelming evidence. That we just have to accommodate, to appease the would-be-murderers some more. That it's all our fault anyway.
I think I've said it before: fool me once, shame on you. Try to fool me again and I have nuclear weapons ready.
But I do appreciate the thought, really. It's nice to know someone cares enough to try and obfuscate the Final Solution. But come on, this is pathetic. We've been there, man. We've heard all these lies before. You don't think very highly of Jews if you think we'll fall for this again.
Amusingly, these lies work on the same kind of goyim and for the same reasons as it did 70 years ago. Please note that the overriding common feature of the suicidal ultra-left (and ultra-right where it merges with the ultra-left) is morbidity about the future, just as it was then. The same processes produced Chamberlain and Helen, almost a century apart. I am not even mentioning the Islamist triumphalism, suppression of individuality, supremacy of the state, focus on "traditional values" and scapegoating of Jews, homosexuals and various other minorities. The similarities are blatantly obvious (and do not end there). I am not even going to go into goose-stepping Aryans.
Point is... you can't pull the wool over OUR eyes. This sort of thing will work with the European ultra-left and ultra-right: I love it when Helens are marching with Hamas members and neo-Nazi skinheads, demanding to reactivate the gas chambers together. It won't work with us: we'll never agree to reactivate the gas chambers. See?
The rise of extremism is also very much parallel to early 20th century, by the way. As is the creeping dissolution of ideology in favor of emotional reaction. The deaths as ideologies of pan-Arabism, Communism, neo-conservativism, liberalism, et al; these are the things we should be noticing.
I do not foresee a crisis of WWII proportions, though, because the destructive forces are divided in the extreme. And the Sunni and the Shia extremist blocks (if they can be called that) are rapidly approaching the limits of their resources, and thus the limits of their power extension. And then there's the exhilarating race both by the Shia and the Sunnis towards nuclear arms (Taliban and friends in Pakistan, goose-stepping Aryans in Iran) that, if fruitful, will force USA to radically alter the global power structures. Something that began with GWB and is now continued by BHO.
Hmmm. Looks like I intended to make a post on my own blog and got carried away commenting on yours. Oh well, hope you don't mind :)
And here's the reformed Benny Morris on the subject. If you can't even fool fool Benny Morris to march happily into another Holocaust, what chance do you stand with more stable Jews?
Aliyah, so you can call me names, and I can't? And no, I haven't sidestepped any issues. You're the one sidestepping issues. You're talking about other political situations, when the subject was Israel. You couldn't care less what I think about other political situations. No, you became angry when I dared to attack Abu Saar, a nasty guy with racist, stupid ideas. So you decided to attack, first accusing me of colonialism, then pinning the entire blame on the Palestinians, then accusing me of hating jews..... Then you claim that the the NI situation is the same as your treatment of the Palestinians in the territories, you don't even seem to admit that there's an occupation. Tell you what? Go to NI and visit Belfast. Then compare it to the situation in the West Bank (I guess you've done service ) and see whether there's a difference.
I don't hate Israel and Israeli's, as such, I hate your occupation. I'd never speak about Israelis in the way that Abu Saar speak about arabs and muslims. But I guess his comments are simply refreshingly candid, because he's an Israeli. Of course. I'm the hater, and he's the good guy. Whatever.
I think I told you before, if you could create a just or almost just peace with the Palestinians, I'd forget Israel, I'd never bother you for a second. But yeah, I am biased against Israel. The occupation is 42 years old, and while I realize that it's not all your fault (few conflicts are)I consider Israel to bear the biggest responsibility. You don't "stand up for your rights" you're trampling on other people's rights. They try to kill you? Yeah, some of them do, sadly. And your goverment is killing them all the time, including people who didn't try to kill you.
I agree with you that Israelis has the same right as Palestinians to live there, but regardless whether you personally recognize the rights of the Palestinians, you know very well that the majority of Israelis don't, or the occupation wouldn't exist.
I also agree it's rather fruitless for us to discuss, our outlooks and opinions are too different, we're not only living in different countries, we're living on different planets. So let's just say we disagree, profoundly, about most things.
Helen
"love it when Helens are marching with Hamas members and neo-Nazi skinheads, demanding to reactivate the gas chambers together."
Aw, that's so sweet dear. :) I'm glad you're not having a mental breakdown or anything.
Now, go and sharpen your machete like a good little Racoon.
Helen
Pisa:Very well then, you didn't say you approved. My bad. Well, let's clarify the matter - do you approve of the blockade of Gaza?
And, I am very tempted to go on the 'victims differentiation' discussion, for pure argumentative pleasure. but I won't. Your argument fails a little though - unless Shalit has himself invented mobile phones..
Aliyah06Olmert never had a good deal to offer, simply because he never had a strong enough mandate to do so.
As for the rest - the historical bit - I know you don't believe in any pre-48 Palestinian right on the land.
First though I think, for the sake of the conversation, that you need to stop saying 'ours' because you weren't there. And neither was I.
As big a supporter as I am of the jus solis, and while the PLO - and Egypt, for that matter - gave Israel the regional legitimacy it so badly sought - this doesn't change history. And the history of Israel is that it was the greatest movement of population for the purpose of civilian settlement in modern history. Writing that 'two groups wanted their own nations here' is an immense glossing over the fact that one of those two groups was - in its vast majority - issued from a mass-immigration movement and were not organic to the region. This isn't a judgment of value, but a simple tracking of population movements.
Moving plenty of Han people in Tibet or in the Xinjiang doesn't automatically turn them into China, does it? We're likely to frown when we read such a thing. Well, same for Israel.
I agree; having once ruled over a land doesn't give Belgium a right over the Congo, or Morocco a right over Spain.. nor the Haganah over Palestine.
Again, I believe in law and right to solve such issues, but I also believe that the winner isn't allowed to retroactively change history.
Britain: Come on. Britain did everything possible to allow and encourage Jewish immigration and to kill any Palestinian political movement there. Even in the text of the Mandate they helped draft, which only recognised, to use your wording, 'the right of one group' over the land but no political, economic or social rights to the other. They helped create and recognised the Jewish representative organisations, which had representative offices in London and in Geneva, while refusing to recognise any Arab org or to officially meet with them, appointing leaders of opposing clans to non-representative organisations - playing the big Palestinian political families, the Husseinis and the Nashashibis, against one another, etc etc. All for the sake of helping the creating of a Jewish state, at the expenses of the native Arab population. Everything they did was, of course, consistent with, perhaps even unavoidable, because of the illogical goal of creating a minority (Jewish) government in an Arab majority land.
Allow me to point you and other readers to Tom Segev's "One Palestine, Complete" or Rashid Khalidi's "The Iron Wall" for more on the British role.
It is unfair to say that 'white european neocolonialists... are never outraged about suicide bombings' and 'snicker at the palestinian murder of Jews', etc. Come on, Sarah. You know better.
Neither you or I demonstrated after the Madrid train bombings (did you?) but that doesn't mean that we 'snickered over the murders'..
As for other peoples - I was in Kosovo last year.
There was a Tamil demonstration at the Trocadero square on Friday.
And I've seen demos in front of the Sudanese consulate.
And these were probably not the same people who demonstrated for Palestine; doesn't make them evil for not caring about Palestine.. right?
Oh, and interesting article by the J-post former editor. Honestly I am - was - hoping that Israelis are past this 'they hate us because we're Jews' though..
Apparently not.
Abu Sa'ar..Reading you makes me feel that you're stockpiling ammo and gas masks and food for a year, in preparation for a war.
Jeez!
I was just talking to a Lebanese friend who was asking me about my impressions of the younger Israeli generation' and their impressions towards peace, and this is what I told her:
the existential threat of the neighbouring countries was gone, and with a clear Israeli victory. And there was a window of opp for peace, because there was a generation growing up in this 'non-existential threat' climate where they could focus on solving the real issues.
'The existential threat from within' - from the Palestinians under their army control and from Israeli Arabs - was essentially manufactured by ideologically motivated people - Bibis and Liebermans - who were against a peaceful settlement and as such needed an external threat to galvanise the population.
The nuclear threat - Iran - is the latest in these manufactured threats, and is no less outlandish. A threat it is, yes. But not more than that.
Because, let's face it, there has been no 'existential threat' since 1948. And even then, one can argue if it even was an existential threat.
Regarding the articles:
Morris' article is pure fiction, the man has lost it. Marcus' was a little more interesting but still paranoid. And he's got upside down, because when he brings in Hutus and Tutsis, Serbs and Bosnians, the parallel to be drawn is Israelis and Palestinians, not the other way round.
Mo -
"Reading you makes me feel that you're stockpiling ammo and gas masks and food for a year, in preparation for a war"
Well, sort of. I pay taxes which go to the stockpiling of ammo and gas masks and food for years and years. I approve of it.
As for external threats: yes, we manage these well, so far. But it's obvious to me and to any other sane Israeli that our enemies have to win only once. And it's also obvious that the moment they can defeat us, they will.
To put it bluntly, we are not being loaded on cattle cars because (a) we're too strong to allow that and (b) our enemies are too weak to force us.
Frankly, I realized that there is no possible way we (me and you) can actually influence each other. I mean, I can understand where you're coming from, I think I can see which movie you're seeing and how your reactions make sense in the context of your movie.
Pardon the transliteration of Hebrew slang :P
It's a somewhat interesting movie. Certainly an exciting one, pertaining to the more general and interesting issues of paradigm shifts, the growth and decay of civilization, the mechanics of forces shaping the world to be. I am yet to finish my analysis about the end of your movie, though.
What do you think, ya Mo? How will your movie end? What will the world look like in 100 years? In general terms?
As for Israel and Israelis -
In a way, you're right about the new generation. But it is also a post-Oslo generation, ya Mo. If not the daily suicide bombings, then the daily rockets. If not hordes of barbarians rushing across the borders, then single barbarians sneaking across it to kill little children with axes. If not car bombs then at least tractor rampages.
So yes, the barbarians cannot destroy us. But they can, do and will try.
So it's not so much the generation that "can make peace" as the generation that "can make security" and build from there. The talks of "peace" are pretty much dead in Israel, ya Mo. The political show is just a show for the Americans and the Euros.
This simple truth is known: the moment they can, our enemies will genocide us.
You also know this to be true. What I wonder, then, is why you work so hard to convince us not to defend ourselves. My presumption, in all honesty, is that some part of it is ultra-liberal ideological residue, some part the result of your movie and some part is the desire to see us go up in thick greasy smoke.
Perhaps the latter is subconscious, I don't know. I am entirely uncertain of the relative proportionality of these factors for you. Care to enlighten me? :)
"Olmert never had a good deal to offer, simply because he never had a strong enough mandate to do so. "
Had Olmert thrown his support behind Livni instead of playing good-ol-boy-network with Barak, then there WOULD be a mandate--Livni got the most votes of all the candidates in the country, which is ample proof most Israelis would like to end the occupation and reach a peace deal. She couldn't pull the coalition together, IMHO due largely to sexism by the good-ol-boys and her refusal to sit with Leiberman. I'm convinced she would have been able to deliver the deal she worked on with Abu Mazen EXCEPT on the refugee issue---which Abu Mazen said was one ofthe deal breakers. The Olmert/Livni talks were going to make East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine, return the settlements (even the BIG settlements like Maale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev).
When a deal more far-reaching than any offered before is turned down on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough, it makes us Israelis think that the PA isn't serious. That there is a hidden agenda. A suspicion that is reinforced when children from a Jenin orchestra as part of a peace project are penalized (and their teacher fired) for playing music for elderly Holocaust survivors. And is further reinforced when the Palestinian division of OneVoice (a grassroots peace movement spanning both countries) is threatened with a terror attack by Palestinian militias for 'collaborating.' Etc. Like maybe this is just a stall, not a real peace negotiation; maybe the PLO and Fatah charters are still in place...?
Contrary to the frothings of some who post here, the majority of Israelis are supportive of a two-state solution, still--but this latest rejection has that support beginning to dwindle as the PA is seen as being rejectionist. (I personally think Abu Mazen's position has less to do with Olmert's offer than it has to do with countering Hamas, but I'm not sure the average Israeli comprehends that).
"Britain did everything possible to allow and encourage Jewish immigration and to kill any Palestinian political movement there."
Britain completely sold out the Mandate even before the White Paper--and if they set Palestinian clans against each other, they also set Jews against Arabs and played Jewish groups against each other.
You've never heard the old joke? "Why does the sun never set on the British Empire?" Answer--"Because G-d doesn't trust the British in the dark."
They're not called "perfidious Albion" for nothing. This below is the latest to crawl out of archives although I haven't been able to find a copy online in the original French:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950373.html
"The [1944] British proposal included, among other points, Syria's unification with Transjordan and Palestine to create "Greater Syria." Syria would also have to accord Britain preferential status in military, economic and cultural matters and not sign any agreement with other countries without prior consultation with London. To persuade the Syrian leaders to agree to these terms, Britain was ready to commit itself to defend Syrian independence in the face of external aggression, continue the White Paper policy in Palestine and put a complete halt to "Jewish ambitions."
This clandestine British proposal to the Syrian government shows that, contrary to what has been believed until now, in August 1944 the British government gave its representatives in the Middle East the go-ahead to implement Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said's "Fertile Crescent Plan." This entailed forming Greater Syria by integrating Syria with Transjordan, Palestine and Lebanon. At a later stage, Greater Syria would be united in a federation with Iraq. The Christian minorities in Lebanon and the Jews in Palestine would enjoy autonomy."
And of course, Britain would control the oil.......
"I know you don't believe in any pre-48 Palestinian right on the land. " Actually, if it came out that way, then I need to rephrase: it would be better put that two populations with competing interests were both promised statehood by the British in return for their support of Britain against the Ottomans, and both had expectations of seeing those promises fulfilled, and both were lied to. The British promised a Jewish homeland to the Jews, a Hashemite booby prize to the Sherif of Mecca when the Hashemites were booted from there, and independence to the Arabs. Perhaps a better way to put it was that EVERYONE had a pre-state interest in a state here. The question was how to resolve it fairly. Partition was the UN answer--and the Jews weren't thrilled with accepting roughly 10%instead of 50% of Palestine they thought they were going to get any more than the Arabs were thrilled about accepting a Jewish state on what they believed should and must be "Arab land."
While I support the two-state solution, I (and many Israelis) wonder if we're just going back to Point A, which is the Palestinian belief that they are entitled to ALL of it and we're entitled to NONE of it.
Most Israelis would like to see the Occupation over and peace. Most of us would like to spend our tax shekels on improved infrastructure, R&D investment, better schools, teachers' salaries--and maybe even get a tax reduction (hah!) if we don't have to maintain an army on the WB and the perimeter of Gaza.
"the existential threat of the neighbouring countries was gone" --well, yes, those of the immediate neighbors--but Ahmedinijad's rantings have done nothing to convince any Israeli of any age that the existential threat is gone. On the contrary, between Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, the 'existential threat' level is perceived as very high.
"Neither you or I demonstrated after the Madrid train bombings (did you?) but that doesn't mean that we 'snickered over the murders'.." Uh, it was a quiet demonstration---signs and candles in front of the Spanish consulate. I was a lot noisier and more pain-in-the-tush over Bosnia: demonstrations, rallies, lots of email and letter and fax-writing campaigning and raising money for victims.
But I stand by my initial point: too many leftist Europeans out there save all their outrage for the Palestinians precisely because it is a fig leaf for Jew-baiting/hating. I know you disagree with me, but ask these pseudo-liberals where their outrage was when Hamas was throwing Fatah members off the roof? Or shooting the father of a Fatah member to get even with the son? Or blowing up a car with Fatah children in it? Or stealing and re-selling humanitarian supplies meant for ordinary Palestiians. Or, delving into history, when King Hussein was slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians? Big European Silence--no outrage, no diplomatic crisis, no rush of aid workers. Because they REALLY don't care about the Palestinians---or the Egyptians, or the Sudanese, or the Israelis or the Turks. (See any Europeans demonstrating in the streets when Turkish kids were attacked, their homes burned a decade ago in Germany? Naw....) But they have 2000 years of hatred against Jews which has so poisoned their society and their outlook on the world that it is second nature to them. C'mon, someone who goes to an anti-Israel rally wearing a sign that says "Kill Jews" and chants "Jews to the gas" is not really addressing the conflict in the ME so much as he/she is indulging in Europe's oldest blood sport.
Hence that article--"Oh, and interesting article by the J-post former editor. Honestly I am - was - hoping that Israelis are past this 'they hate us because we're Jews' though.. " Nope. We're not over it. And the world has not given us any reason to be over it. Not yet, anyway.
I've read One Palestine Complete. Although Segev styles himself a historian, he is really a newspaper columnist, and while entertaining reading, his omissions are so profound (and his admiration for the Brits so smarmy) that I couldn't swallow his conclusions--he simply omitted far too much of otherwise well documented facts in order to make his political points. That's not history. That's polemics.
Gotta quit--sorry to ramble on so long and take up so much space!
Mo
"Well, let's clarify the matter - do you approve of the blockade of Gaza?"
I don't have a yes-or-no answer to this question.
When my kid was in kindergarten there was no blockade on Gaza. Buses used to explode once in a while, as did restaurants, shopping centers, discotheques. My kid used to call me several times a day on my cellphone just to make sure I wasn't anywhere near a bus. He made me promise, every time I left the house, that I won't take the bus. My friend, whose daughter is my kid's age, never took her to the mall (there was only one in my town then). Every time I took my own kid to the mall or other crowded place I felt like I was playing russian roulette with his life.
To answer your question - when my kid goes out with friends, which usually involves buses and malls, then yes, I not only approve of the blockade, I'm glad there is one.
Please don't tell me I should think about the children of Gaza - I certainly will when their leaders will ask the people of Gaza to think about israeli children (not as targets, of course!). Until then, I'm with Sarah and Abu Saar 100%.
Abu Sa'ar -Eze seret..
Well, I'm actually switching between two channels. One has a horror film, called "From dusk til dawn: still stuck at the checkpoint". The other is a romantic flick, titled "The House on the Lake (Tiberias)".
(and yes, it took me 10 minutes to come up with those).Joke aside - my 'movie' is less dark than yours. Yes, you aren't the most popular guy on the block.
HOWEVER, and this is where we drastically differ: You are convinced that you are under an existential threat; I think the threat is much, much smaller, and more importantly manageable. And even more importantly: if you wish, you can resolve it once and for all. And no, not through annihilating your enemies: through making peace.
As for your inquiry about my subconscious.. (which, according to Nizo, the Jews have usurped as well.. :)
"Going in thick greasy smoke". What a romantic you are.
But no, I don't want to see anyone go in thick greasy smoke.
(plus, you gotta think of the environment).
I asked myself whether my answer would've been the same say, 10 years ago. And honestly, it's still be no.
Sure, I wish Ben Gurion had died of chicken-pox as a child and that Teddy Herzl had been sent to cover the Montreal Formula 1 Grand Prix rather than the 'affaire Dreyfus'. And I believe Nakba to be one of the greatest disasters in modern history
and I wish it had never happened.
But let's face it - all this is pointless now. From a realistic point of view, to simplify.
So if you're asking me whether I secretly harbour a decide for mass-murder: no.
And more importantly, I'm not trying 'to convince you not to defend yourselves'. Far from it. I'm rather concerned that you, in an attempt for 'defense', would annihilate us. After all, Israel is the only nuclear (noo-koo-lar!) power in the region.
Pisa:
Interesting response.
"Please don't tell me I should think about the children of Gaza"Oh, fear not, I will not appeal to your sense of humanity, given that you view it as contingent on other factors anyway.
Only to your sense of logic: most suicide bombers who blew up the buses and malls came from the West Bank, not from Gaza.. And the blockade, in its tigthest form, followed the Hamas elections and the subsequent intra-Palestinian mini-civil war. It wasn't about the bus blowing up.
Mo -
I am not sure how familiar you are with Hebrew slang... seret is a druggie word. To be "in a movie" originally referred to an acid trip; the slang term refers to the same kind of subjective reality. And I was asking about you personally, I am aware of and amused by the collective movies of Arab societies.
About the threat - yes, it is manageable and is being managed. I wonder why you're so dead set against the management, though :)
As for peace - thank you, Israel had enough pipe dreams. Things seem to be going more in the security direction.
Walla, Mo, not only did we occupy your subconsciousness, we apparently built a settlement, laid roads and opened a kosher McDonalds :)
Case in point: "...I believe Nakba to be one of the greatest disasters in modern history..."
As a disaster, this is a non-event. What, some 8-to-15K killed (most of them soldiers)? ~400K internally displaced? I speak only of the Arab side since I doubt you take Jewish suffering into consideration when calculating the scale of "nakba". Either way it's utterly insignificant in modern history.
And Israel is not a danger to anyone not trying to destroy us. Again this stubborn Israeli insistence on not being genocided!
By the way, your answer about genocide is interesting. You accept that we cannot be genocided and concede that it's unrealistic. OK. That doesn't answer the question, though. I know you specifically are not plotting genocide.
NM, though, you answered sufficiently by not quite answering. Thank you.
Oh, and about thick greasy smoke and the environment: I think it balances out, we make excellent fertilizer. I love morbid puns :)
As for the Gaza blockade: the lovers of Israeli public transportation have been mostly neutralized. One of the measures performing this vital function is the Gaza blockade. Same thing for rate and range of rocket attacks.
Slang: Nope, you're teaching me something here. 'to be in a movie'.. i'll use this one. "hey, ma ata, be-seret???" (how about that formula?)
Speaking of kosher mcdonalds, is it true that McDonalds in Israel used to serve its cheeseburgers in unleavened bread for pesach?
Priceless..
You seem to oppose 'peace' with 'security'. It's a pretty narrow view of the world, though I see where you're coming from. But you can't seem to understand that 'security' doesn't necessarily come at the expense of 'peace'. That is just choosing the easy way out - otherwise known as 'make the Palestinians' life a living hell for the sadistic fun of it'. The problem is that this kind of 'security' will be increasingly difficult, increasingly expensive, and will unavoidably break at one point because, as American cinema has taught us, no security system is perfect.
Why won't you consider that peace could lead to security? And you have a good precedent for that - a 30-year old precedent. Az ma?
And peace doesn't mean 'disarm' nor does it mean 'don't defend yourself against potential threats'. D'oh.
Re: Nakba: no, not as a military battle, but its implications, for the dispossessment of 700,000 people, the loss of land, AND everything that came after. the May war not as a standalone event, hence, but as a major point in history and its subsequent effects.
Israel not a danger? Nonsense. Israel has no set borders and remains a threatening expansionist state. Ask the West-Bankers.
And the various wackos with guns that want to re-settle the Sinai? and your Minister of Foreign Affairs who threatened to bomb the High Dam to drown Cairo?
If someone should fear genocide, that should be me.
Re: My answer on genocide: oh come on. You know better. "you answered sufficiently by not quite answering.". What the hell, Raccoon? Cut the attitude. You know very well the answer to your original question, which I nevertheless tried to answer as honestly as possible. Still you wanted to hear something and not having heard it, you're convincing yourself that I implied it 'by not quite answering'?
Let's cut to the chase: I wish Israel a happy and prosperous life, nicely set in its pre-june 1967 borders.
Happy? I wish for no-one to go in thick greasy smoke.
Except for the idiot who smashed into my car last year. But that wasn't even in Israel.
Blockade: bullshit. Rockets, perhaps. Suicide bombers, nonsense. And, fyi, it's not even the West Bank wall and checkpoints. (as a friend always says, a suicide bomber will not go wait at a checkpoint).It's improved intelligence work and an increased number of informants in the WB.
Morbid puns: oh, I saw something of the style coming...
Mo -
It's a very versatile word, seret. "hey, ma ata, be-seret???" is indeed applicable, but it is usually presumed that one is more likely to be in a movie than not. "Ma haseret shelkha?" makes more sense.
Alternatively, since it comes from the drugs scene, you can eat movies. So when someone "okhel sratim"/"akhul sratim", it refers usually to grossly exaggerating the importance and/or details of something. Like you, for instance, okhel sratim about Nakba :)
Sorry, I couldn't resist this jab... Same goes for the "you answered sufficiently by not quite answering" remark: I found your wording irresistibly porous. Me and such things is like Palestinians and terrorism - I know I shouldn't, but it's just too much fun :)
And as for "Nakba" - even with your expanded definition - the total human suffering inflicted on people of any kind as the direct consequence of Israel's independence (happy Independence Day, by the way! :) ) is negligible as a disaster. Frankly, it's negligible as a disaster even on a regional scale.
This whole thing is a minor local squabble, and is historically significant only because of the uniqueness of the very fact of Jewish return home. That 22 states, many of them huge, are consistently failing to destroy one tiny Israel is also historically interesting. But as a disaster? Today we commemorate our fallen, the 22,570 of them. For us it's a great deal. From a historic perspective, it's less than an average day of the Holocaust. In a single average week of December, 1937 in Nanking more people died that in all of the Arab-Jewish conflicts in the past two centuries. Comparisons are amusing.
Next - security and peace. Walla, Mo, I am all for peace. I am also all for having superpowers. While I await either to become possible, I'll settle for the next best thing: security and technology.
And yes, it is excellent that we have a lasting state of non-war with the governments of Egypt and Jordan. We offered excellent terms to the Palestinians and got psychotic violence in return.
"otherwise known as 'make the Palestinians' life a living hell for the sadistic fun of it'" - yes, evil sadistic Jooz who have nothing better to do than fail pathetically at making life a living hell for Palestinians. Right. Because Jews are known for their peculiar habit of wasting money for no purpose whatsoever :)
I told you already how I think Israel should handle the Palestinians - a declaration of a de-facto Palestinian state (basically what PA already is); completion of the security barrier wherever we need it, hence both defining borders and protecting against terrorists; continuation of intelligence gathering by whichever means necessary; development and utilization of defences against the new ways to kill Jews Palestinians will inevitably try; closure of borders with this new state, with very tight controls on who and what crosses it (keeping both to a minimum).
Eventually Palestinians will either grow up or kill each other off. I don't really care how or what they do as long as they leave me out of it.
As for Israel being dangerous - yes, Israel is deadly to those who attack her. Kind of a cyclical thing, you see. If Israel wasn't deadly in self-defense there would be no Israel. And there would be much less Jooz around...
As for Israel being an expansionist state - right, so THAT's why we gave Sinai up! We go in a very roundabout way with this whole expansion business, no? Throwing valuable libensraum out for non-war with a state we can annihilate?
As for blockade, I repeat:
"One of the measures performing this vital function is the Gaza blockade"
The really interesting question has not been answered, though. How do you see the world a 100 years from now?
"is it true that McDonalds in Israel used to serve its cheeseburgers in unleavened bread for pesach?"
It wasn't McDonalds--it was an outfit called McDavids in Tel Aviv--and I know because my husband stopped there with his softball team, one of whom ordered a cheeseburger during Pesach. It came on matzoh. "Hey," the softball guy protested, "How about a bun?!"
McDavid's guy: "Can't do that--the rabbis won't be happy if we serve bread during Pesach."
The Husband [laughing out loud],"Yeah, well, they're probably not too happy about the cheese on the burger, either, so give him a bun!"
Turned out they didn't have any buns, so his teammate had to struggle with the matzoh.
Abu Sa'ar -
If you see the Nakba as a minor squabble, then you completely fail to understand the Palestinian issue! Nakba is basically to the Palestinian psyche what the Holocaust is to the Jewish one.
As for Sinai - well Sinai you didn't evacuate 'for the sake of our beautiful black eyes', as we say in Egypt! The deal was too sweet to miss, and you took it.
If you don't believe that Israel remains an expansionist state, as i said, ask any West Banker whose land has been, is being confiscated.
Or explain to me why the Jewish Agency is currently advertising in France to encourage French immigration to West Bank settlements, for the 'authentic orthodox experience'.
The world in 100 years?
"in the long term, we're all dead", said Milton Friedman.
Mo -
I was not talking about the Palestinian psyche and the importance of anything to it. For Palestinians I am a target, Tel Aviv is built on the ruins of Tel el-Rabi and Jews have no right to their homeland. The relevance of Palestinian psyche to reality tends to be marginal and malevolent.
So again: the first failed Arab genocide of the Jews is a non-event as a disaster from a global or regional point of view.
I am tired of Palestinians as a subject of contemplation. A people whose sole raison d'être is the destruction of another people are interesting as an aberration, a strange quirk of history. Frankly, in recent while I have been observing Palestinian affairs solely out of morbid curiosity. I have been discussing them at all because you seemed like an Arab intellectual with a Liberal Western frame of reference, a rare occurrence outside ivory towers and thus an interesting specimen :)
Eeeh.. was that a compliment? Thanks, I guess? :)
If you want your 'observation of Palestinian affairs' to become remarkably more interesting, you need to switch off Arutz7 and stop picturing Palestinians as a strange species whose sole purpose is to kill you. (is anyone else thinking Terminator 1, here?) They're not. And they don't care about you or your existence. They care about theirs, which is severely impeded by the actions of your government and its settlers..
Honestly. The day I decided to stop considering the Israelis as a strange species whose sole purpose is to kill me, the whole thing became far more entertaining..
Try it. :)
I am amazed every time anew at your incredible inability to comprehend Israelis, me included.
Walla, I am happy you left one particular movie about Israelis behind.
Nonetheless... yalla, khalas :)
Hi !.
might , probably curious to know how one can make real money .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you thought of all the time
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!
I feel good, I began to take up real money with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner who uses your savings in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://yjynytep.100freemb.com/unimoq.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Post a Comment