 MIDDLE EAST DISCUSSION |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Middle East |
—————————————————————————————
The Middle East has exploded into violence again. In Israel, suicide bombers have killed dozens of civilians in repeat attacks, and the Israeli military has invaded the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority.
How should the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved? How would you advise Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, Palestinian Chairman Arafat, and US President Bush?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————
- Saturday April 06, 2002 at 3:18 am
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but putting the pieces together (which is a definite no-no in our postmodern society), what has happened so far is this. The second intifada began when Ariel Sharon set his foot on the Temple Mount (or what ever it is called in Arabic). The Palestinians considered this a grave provocation. Since all seems to boil down to the question who did what first, let me ask you if Ariel Sharon restricted somebody's freedom of movement first or did that come later. He was holding no government position at the time. The Palestinians say the Israelis kill children, but I remember distinctly seeing on TV an interview with a Palestinian who was asked if a 14-year should fight, and the answer was that a 14-year old is a man so he must fight. What particularly puts me off the way the Palestinians carry the coffins of the dead people before the TV cameras as if they had won a trophy. Israel is accused of state terrorism. A state and terrorism are mutually exclusive things (that is why terrorism cannot be called terrorism when it is resorted to in pursuing the right of self-determination). "State terrorism" must have been coined in the first place, because the Arabs call the Israelis terrorists and surprisingly many people in the West do not know that the Arab countries do not recognize Israel as a state. When the U.S. calls Israel a sovereign state, that may sound a platitude, but there is more than meets the eye. On the other hand, when the Palestinians talk of the occupied territories, they most likely mean the state of Israel as well. I don't know what kind of international agreements can do any good in a situation like this. The State of Israel was created by international agreements. Sure, the Palestinians want a state of their own, but does it mean that Israel will remain occupied territory in their eyes? The Palestinians are concerned about the safety of Mr Arafat, as they should be a few weeks after they killed an Israeli cabinet minister. The Palestinians call Israelis Nazis and Fascists, but if that has any relevance, who are the Neo-Nazis actually siding with? In this postmodernist looking-glass world it must soon be a crime against humanity to speak out for the holocaust victims. The Palestinians blame anyone but themselves. They blame the British colonial rule, which they might, if they did not rebut the holocaust argument by replying that they were born before the holocaust took place, so they have nothing to do with it. No, the land is so dear to them they that they are willing to kill people for it. If you call them terrorists, they will beat you up or stone you, as they did Lionel Jospin, so the lesson must be that they are no terrorists. But why do they have to export their violence. Did the synagogues in France attack the Muslim community, or why did they have to be burnt? Or is the next joke that the Jews burnt their Torah scrolls so they could blame the Muslims? This inverted logic led to bizarre results after September 11. We all saw the pictures of the Palestinians rejoicing after the event. After they realized their reaction was not generally appreciated, they said Israel did it. If this is the view that the Palestinians have of their joining forces with the Israelis, let that day never come. Even if Israel was somehow involved, I'll never buy the excuse that the Israelis forced the terrorists to do it. Or have the Arabs and the Israelis really found a common ground? I am not saying the Palestinians are any more guilty of inverted logic than any of us, no it is only too common everywhere, certainly these days, but what sets this logic apart is the level of intimidation that is used to cram it down the people's throats. Soon one must be in fear of one's life to think rationally.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday April 06, 2002 at 4:34 pm
First, to answer the uninformed original poster. The 2nd round of arab attacks started 8 months before Ari Sharon was democratically elected to protect Israel's citizens from these waves (12,000) of attack bombers targeted at civilians. WWIII is a war for values. Western versus eastern. The west believes in freedoms, the east believes in tyranny and despotism. Its hard to see this on TV but this is a war for culture a PAX Americana. What we did in Germany and Japan we will do with Iraq first. Install a pro-western power in this region to balance out the anti-western countires. We will back Israel. Eventually the media will get the picture that they missed the headline on 9.11 that was all over the world after pearl harbor. The weird and uncertain aspect many people feel is due to the PC culture of relativism that pervades and permeates the mainstrem media outlets. This mediocre, tacit, and intellectual approval is basically a stalling tactic for personal aggrandizement better known as money or ratings.
Michael Glazer
Michigan, USA - Saturday April 06, 2002 at 4:50 pm
The solution is as simple as the problem, which the Israelis have known from the get go (30 yrs) and others (America at least) are slowly coming to term with. First, the problem is a culture of murder. Despots who praise, educate, approve and encourage murder, hate, and intolerance. Everythign we in the West have fought for years and hold so dear. The arab culture just as aggresively supports the complete opposite of ourselves. What the solution is a re-education of these populaces. From hate to understanding. From intolerance to tolerance. Basic human values need to passed on the South East. Murder is bad, freedom of religions etc... What is most important in these dictatorships is to make sure that the top despots change their tune from nazism. The basic thing is the approval from americans, europeans and arabs to murderous thugs will not lead to some divine or ideal notion of 'peace.' You can't fool the bleeding ox of whom gored it. Theres this distressing point that an ideal of peace can be achieved with a billion islamists who want to destry israel and kill all jewish people by giving into what they expect i.e. the high ground over tel-aviv to finish them off. Does that make sense?
Michael Glazer
Michigan, USA - Sunday April 07, 2002 at 4:23 am
as an israeli jew as myself, it is both amazing and frightening to read the two earlier comments on the israeli palestinian conflict. the lack of human compassion and more than a hint of religous racism or at least bious patronage towards the palestinians leaves me agast. to set everyone's percpectives right: ariel sharon was found guilty by an israeli judicial inquiry commitee- kahan committe- as to his performance in the events of the sabra and shatila massacar. he is prevented by the decision of that commitee to ever serve as the defence minister of Israel.there is no other politition or gereneral , that carries this dubious honour.whilst i do not wish to judge right now the palestinian leadership, and i can probably find many faults in their actions, it is with great pain, as an israeli, that i say that this is a war provoked by the israeli right wing hawks, from the murder of yitzchak rabin onwards, geared at the distruction of the oslo accords, because they had wanted to stop, at all costs the dismanteling of the settlements on the west bank. from the humanitarian point of view, it is definitly david v' goliath, only today,as apposed to the past, we are the goliath. the present us government is so cynical in its actions, that it almost makes an ideology of it. its crusade against muslems, and they are carring out such a crusade which they find difficult to distinguish from their oil owning arab friends, influences its attitude towards the conflict, and the american intelectual community is pretty silent. as the us is the only global power today, hope for a just solution or for that matter, just a solution, is close to o.
ada ravon
tel aviv
israel - Sunday April 07, 2002 at 6:24 am
"Human compassion"? Were those TV images of rejoicing Palestinians after the 9-11 attack doctored? A Hamaz spokesman explained that they are Muslims: they do not kill people as an end but only as a means to achieve a political goal. How reassuring that human lives are regarder only as a means! These are the people that come lecturing us about human compassion, a few months after the 9-11 attack. I am not particularly in favour of the Palestinians or the Israelis, but clearly somebody wants to make their problems the whole world's problems, so is it too much to ask that people like me can have a say in this matter? As far as I know, Israel is a sovereign state, but obviously even that depends on how you look at it.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Sunday April 07, 2002 at 1:59 pm
About 15 years ago I met a fellow student from Michigan (Bob was his name) who could not believe that somebody who is not a native speaker can think in English. Needless to say, he could not speak any other language but English, and therefore he could not grasp the concept of thinking in another language, let alone understand another culture or another way of life. To Michael who wants to fight WWIII for (his) values I can say: try to understand before you judge. There are no “good” and “bad” guys (they only exist in bad Hollywood productions) and the world affairs cannot be judged in such a simplistic way. What happened on September 11 is awful, but it doesn’t mean you now have the right to kill everyone who doesn’t show compassion. In fact, using this terrible tragedy as an excuse to settle old scores, eliminate non-complying governments and establish complete global dominance is truly disgusting. Regarding the East vs West and freedom vs tyranny comment, I would like to point out that tyranny is always imposed by the stronger, and that is exactly what US and its allies are doing to the rest of the world, so I don’t think there is a high moral ground for them to talk about freedom, democracy, etc. when they are crushing everyone who dares to question their motives and methods.
Igor J
Australia - Sunday April 07, 2002 at 3:22 pm
Poor dear Mr. Glazer, No one believes in tyranny and despotism -people fight it in any way they can, with whatever they have, and nothing in your racist diatribe will change that. If you believe that America believes in freedom (as I do too, frankly), you might do well to go out and help save it, because this is what's "hard to see on TV", where violence and idiocy seem to be the order of the day.
Virginia Brown Keyder
Istanbul
Turkey - Monday April 08, 2002 at 2:44 am
The U.S. foreign policy is truly an abomination. Their list of terrorist organizations change at the drop of a hat, and woe be unto you if your list of terrorist organizations differs from theirs. Who knows what might happen (and only too many people know what does)! On the other hand, the faults in the U.S. policy cannot be used as an excuse for indulging terrorism either. And this brings us to Israel. As a sovereign state, Israel has the right of self-defence. They go and kill the people with the guns in their hands (and this obviously includes women and children), and if innocent civilians die, you could be much saner to blame the terrorists, who should not have their weapons in the first place, than Israel. Even that is not enough. Why are Hamaz and Hizbollah allowed to make the murderous comments that are televised all around the world. Try doing something similar in your own country! There is obviously no insanity in this world which cannot be claimed by somebody as their religion. But to be allowed to do it publicly, there must be something wrong with the Authority. Or you can deny that Israel is a sovereign state, as those have done which are surely no bastions of tolerance and religious freedom. So even if the US is a pinnacle of hypocricy, that does not make their opponents any cleaner and that does not make the US views any more untrue as far as they go. It is atrocious to refer to the September 11 attacks and make the Americans feel guilty for it. This kind of shifting the blame resembles a bad marriage where the partners are trying to manipulate each other by feelings of guilt. So please enough of this "turn the other cheek" mentality in world affairs. Isn't it awful that there are states that put themselves and their citizens first? That is called politics. They would be crazy to do otherwise, as so many non-entities do. And please stop using such epithets as "racist" and "religious racist" (whatever that means), that is just the kind of intimidation that has blown the whole Middle East mess out of all proportion.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday April 08, 2002 at 6:00 am
Why should Israel be the only country in the World to give away land to terrorists? What then will Turkey do with the Kurds?, Spain with the Basques?, Serbia with Kosovo?, (the USA with Black Americans who demanded their own State in the 60s upheaval?), and countless other countries trying live with disgruntled minorities. Moreover, who is to guarantee that the palestinian terrorists will cease terrorism even if they are given statehood? All the Middle Eastern Arab countries consider palestinians to be gypsies, lower class. It is no wonder they have have expelled these unskilled, unemployable, rootless and homeless violent palestinians from their countries and foisted the problem on Israel, which they dislike only marginally more.
D C
R/C - Monday April 08, 2002 at 10:26 am
Cristine Dardel Libellules 2 bis 1010 Lausanne Switzerland Jerusalem Post Lausanne 4.4.02 “The State of Israel did not want and still does not want peace. It wants conquest”( Leibowitz). Letter to the Editor Dear Sir, We are not born into Judaism, Christianity or Islam. We are born into humanity. In the name of humanity Israel must leave the occupied territories and return to the frontiers of 1967. What you are doing in Palestine is morally repugnant. The question everybody is asking themselves is how can the Jewish nation, which has suffered as you have over the centuries, inflict such suffering on another people. What gives you the right to return after 2000 years of exile and refuse the right of return to Palestinians that you have forced into exile? Your “ Law of return,” which confers on every Diaspora Jew an inherent right to become an Israeli citizen becomes indecent when you refuse the return of the Palestinian Diaspora. “The return and construction by one people took place at the expense of expulsion and destruction or the other”( Dilip Hero). The Palestinians have as much right to be there as the Jews. 1948, “Al nakba - the disaster” is an historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over it’s territory. The respect and admiration which existed in the past for the state of Israel in it’s early years have ceased to exist. Israel has lost a lot of world sympathy because the Israel of today has nothing to do with the pacific, socialist ideology of the early years. What has happened to Judaism? How has the nationalist fever been allowed to let the gangrene set in, for Israel has become a state of judeo -fascism. How is it possible that the rising nationalism in Israel can have allowed Ariel Sharon to reappear in the front line of politics? This man was severely critised in the report following the massacres of Sabra and Chatilla. Yasser Arafat is a scapegoat. The stem of the problem is not terrorism in Israel but the deliberate Israelian strategy of colonisation and its will to annihilate the Palestinian authority. After the massacres on sept. 24 there were mass demonstrations in Tel -Aviv when 400,000 people were asking for a judicial commission of enquiry. The people who voted for him are those who accepted the financial inducements, larger houses, lower house prices, lower mortgages, greater tax benefits- very attractive to people who had little money, no ideological reason for living the West bank, people who exalt private enterprise and are as addicted to individual gain and consumerism as Americans. In 1914 there were 60,000 Jews and 340,000 Arabs. By 2001 there were 5,000,000 Jews and 3,000,000. He supported Begins policy in allowing the proliferation of settlements on the West bank and in the Gaza strip. Loyal to his will to create the “great Israel” he has no intention of to conceding anything to the Palestinians, whatever the price. He wants to consolidate Israel’s hold on Jerusalem, reinforce frontiers and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. He wants to drive the Arab population towards Jordan so that he can install his Jewish State. His objective, is to transform the Intifada into a routine war and creating living conditions which are unbearable for the Palestinians and so forcing them to leave: bombardments, murders, humiliations, brutality, everything to crush their spirit. Even their water resources are being diverted. Ben Gourion said, “ We will make Israel a model society. We will become integrated into the Middle East and our neighbours will be forced to follow our example”. But several things have destroyed that illusion. Firstly, Israel has allowed religious fanatism to prosper. Secondly, it has allowed a constant battle between religion and the state. Ben Gourion said “ I will never accept the separation between religion and the state. I want the state to have supreme control over religion.” Nationalism and religious extremism makes an explosive combination. Thirdly, it has become the machinery of violence. “The State of Israel is not a state which possesses an army but an army which possesses a state” (Leibowitz) i.e. the ninth military power in the world with over 200 nuclear weapons. In the mean time Palestinians defend themselves with stones. The kamikaze killings are pure desperation and they are being used to justify a so-called fight against terrorism and exploit American support after the 11th September. If Israel stopped its fascist ambitions there would be a place for comprehensive peace based on mutual recognition. As long as Israel remains convinced that help from the USA will continue indefinitely it will never show any interest in peace. The world knows that the USA is the accomplice of Israel and that neither country wants a Palestinian state. The speeches of “W” Bush have no credibility except for Americans most of whom don’t even know that the rest of the world exists and can’t even recognise Palestine on the map. The hypocrisy of American policy in the Middle East does not deceive the world. The Americans protect American interests, too bad for the others. The silence of the Arab League is your excuse to continue your dirty work. They are like you and the Americans. You are all more interested in the financial interests than moral or humanitarian matters and certainly not justice. Gehula Cohen (right wing extremist) was quoted as saying “ the Jewish people did not come back here to live in peace but to realise the national objectives inscribed in the Bible”. The message is very clear. God help this planet. The Palestinians would rather die on their feet then live on their knees. Yours faithfully Cristine Dardel Copie: Embassy of Israel, Switzerland
cristine dardel
lausanne
Switzerland - Monday April 08, 2002 at 5:42 pm
One advice that I would give to the Bush Administration in order to resolve the crisis is: STOP GIVING israel BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY FROM OUR TAX MONEY!!! Only then the oppression and occupation will stop. Amids the talks of pulling the Israeli forces out of the occupied territory, there is a new shipment of latest american helicopters that is being sold to the Israeli army which will be paid, again, by the Americans themselves. That won't resolve the conflict and certainly will not stop the violance on both sides.
Sheikh Muhammad
USA - Monday April 08, 2002 at 9:59 pm
What to do to resolve the conflict... Maybe this was mentioned before: 1) Israel army must remove military presence in West Bank/Gaza, 2) move Jews back to Israel providing them with comparable homes in Israel land (US donates $Billions so this should not be a problem) 3) literally build a wall on the border that prevents entrance/exit either way, except in parts of Jersalem, 4) re-establish Palestinian home rule with appropriate infrastructure, e.g., Government, Police, Firefighters, etc. 5) Temporarily install Arafat into power, but only until election process can begin (no later than 6 months). 6) US to provide $1 billion to Palestine to rebuild (with clear direction where the money goes). 7) continue to seek out any terrorists cells in Palestine that won't cooperate (UN-led or US-led, but not Israeli-led). Also seek out any Israeli-type agression/terrorism should this occur, 8) Use Peace Keepers for 10 years prevent any visits from Palestinians into Israel and vica-versa for literally 10 years - prevents trouble and eases the anger after some time. 9) Pray for hope and miracles...
Mario Moreira
USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 1:34 am
People obviously don't realize here that we claim to be democratic but to hell with democracy in the middle east. The US government in no way, shape, or form wishes to give those people democracies. Why deal with politics when you can put one man in charge and pay him lots and lots of money to be on your side. We need the oil. You know an American president can guarentee he won't be re-elected? Hike the gases prices to like $4 a gallon as it is in Europe. Screw that. Americans like to drive. Israel. palestine. well lets see. We back up Israel for a very very good reason. Their secret service does a marvelous job killing those people we pay them to. You wonder why we pay them so much? Hey, they deserve it. It's all very "unamerican" to do our own killings. I believe the Palestinians should be compensated and helped by the UN, by the world. Israel, well, they are doing well for themselves. The key to peace is to eastablish everyone to make money. No one wants to fight when economies are going good and people have jobs. Happy people have jobs. Unhappy people have guns. Build them a workable land and economy.....lower unemployment, bring up health provisions, turn refugee camps into towns with houses and businesses. It could work. Make an agreement of no more moving for israel. You got what you got, you push it any further and you are in trouble with the world. Make palestine prosperous, then when peace is established, set up a democracy so they can run themselves. End of story.
Bri Pinder
Boston
MA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 2:25 am
This is in reply to DC-R/C whose simplistic, nay rudimentary, approach to the Middle Eastern conflict reflects too painfully what little, if any, comprehension s/he must have of the world at large. What DC-R/C likes to brand as the “disgruntled minority” happen to be a people who out numbered the Jews whom the Western world appeased by a promise to a land; the Palestinian “minority” comprises, to this date, people of different religions, unlike the state of Israel-a state composed solely of Jews. These “lower-class” people are the most educated Arabs in the region. The wealth and privileges of countries like Kuwait rest on the backs of the educated Palestinian masses. While it may be true that Palestinians have been expelled from one Arabic country to another, the reasons for this remain clearly connected to Arabic leaders’ decadence and disunity. Arabic countries, however, did not “foist” the “problem” of the Palestinians upon the Israeli state; it brought it upon itself when its approach to the Palestinians who lived in Palestine-prior to the conception of the state of Israel-was summarized in the statement that “they do not exist.”
Dana O.
VA/ USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 2:53 am
Yasser Arafat said the Palestinians are not asking for the moon. I am not so sure. It was claimed above that the stem of the problem is not terrorism. Depends on what problem you mean. The problem that has now got the whole world involved in the conflict has everything to do with terrorism. If you say terrorism in not THE problem, you are saying that terrorism is not A problem, which means that terrorism is not terrorism after all but a legitimate form of whatever, which is a blatant contradiction of not only the near-universal perception of the problem but also of the plain facts. Suicide bombings are said to be due to the simple desperation of the people. Where have we heard that before? The problem with these desperados is that they do not know when to stop, so they can go on with their mayhem for years after the alleged problem has been solved. Could that be what has happened in Palestine? If so, no wonder the Israelis have run out of patience. And whether the Palestinians want it or not, the "problem" has now spun out of control after the 9-11 attack. What were these guys so desperate about? Palestine? What next? Kashmir? The Philippines? The world is going to run out of skyscrapers before all their grievances have been solved. It is obvious that these psychopaths used the Palestine conflict as an excuse to install their own version of world domination, but since the disaster has been linked with Palestine, in whose interests is it to solve the problem? It does not help that the Palestians do not make the slightest effort to address the terrorism issue. Is it not the Palestinians' own responsibility to get their act together as far as terrorism is concerned? No-one can do it for them, and until they do, who's going to believe that a Palestinian state is going to bring peace? Why does it always have to be someone else that makes the initiative? Believe it or not, the Palestinians are not the only people that have had it tough. Start by taking a look at the Jews, to take an obvious example. What right do they have to come back after 2000 years? Well, 20 times as much right as the Palestinians, who have been away about a hundred years. So that rhetorical question cuts both ways. Another example: the US was founded by "refugees". In Europe, there have been massive population expulsions and exchanges after both world wars. That is no excuse to wallow in self-pity. So if your problem is the Jews' coming back after 2000 years, where should they go? Should they be driven back into diaspora so you can have your state? What is the time limit until when things were good? 1948? So the Palestinians mean that Israel should not be a state after all? Whatever the Palestinians suggest always sounds peculiarly hollow. It is a sorry state of affairs that Israel has no fixed borders. Is the 1967 the magical date? From what I have heard, the Palestinians had their terrorist activity going on even before that. It is the lives of innocent Israelis and Palestinians that we are talking about here, so let us forget about all the geopolitics for a while. Many of us have a grievance against the US, but let's not make these people pay for our own hangups. It is a dismal fact that the US is using the conflict as a stepping stone to Iraq. All the talk about Israeli sovereignty sounds empty, when the US and Britain count the Iraqi sovereignty as nothing. Likewise, it is a trap to appeal to the two Security Council resolutions that order Israel to pull out, because the next thing you know, the US and Britain are going to attack Iraq without any Security Council authorization. But to put things in perspective, it is no less true to say that the Arab world also has some undefined desire for world conquest, and in this game the Palestinians are the pawns. What brings this problem closer to home is that the Western societies and many others already have a problem with self-titled "jihadi" punks. Any clear-headed individual can get a better grasp of Islam in a few weeks than these religious charlatans in their lifetime, who should get a life first and a Koran afterwards. It is this fifth column of any so-called Muslim cause which makes it hard to address the Palestinian issue in any way that does not have a backlash on those who have nothing to do with the problem in the first place. And the Palestinians do not help. It is disheartening to read that they would rather die standing than live on their knees. If those are the only options, it is already obvious that they have chosen for the latter. Isn't it about time you could come up with a third alternative without someone having to spell it out for you? Politics is the art of the possible. You are asking for the moon.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 5:38 am
Thank you for this forum. In my opinion, Israel has a reason to behave the way it is doing except that they should take cuation not to harm palestine civilians. The destruction of infrastructure used by Palestine militants should really be destroyed. As for mediating the two sides, why doesn't UN make boarders for each nation i.e Palestine and Israel and the two nations can observe that? However in making the two neighbouring natins, UN can remember the parts which belonged to Israel according to the Holy Bible i.e Jelusalem, Bethelehe, Judah, Nazareth are known cites for Isreal from biblical times and time of Jesus. Thank you
Fred MUGISHA
Rwanda - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 5:39 am
A response to Jari Nousiainen of Finland. Dude, instead of citing what YOU heard, why don't you do some research? Crack open a book and find out the facts before you regurgitate "what [YOU] heard." From reading your postings, I have come to the conclusion that you have no clue as to what the real issues are and you admited it yourself in your Saturday April 06, 2002 at 3:18 am and I quote, "correct me if I'm wrong, but putting the pieces together..." and brother (or sister) I am writing to correct you because you are DEFINITELY WRONG. I will pull just two statements you've made that prove you ARE wrong--there are more, believe me but I think 2 examples will suffice. Here they are (pay attention cause I've observed that you have a tendency to block out info that you don't agree with; selective hearing if you ask me). 1. You stated on April 06, 2002 at 3:18 am, "when the Palestinians talk of the occupied territories, they most likely mean the state of Israel as well.." WRONG. What the Palestinians refer to as the occupied territories are the West Bank and Gaza which are Palestinian territories; not Israel. They refer to Palestinian cities controled by the Israeli military, ILLEGAL Jewish settlers and of course the Israeli government. Hence the term OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, duh? How can you miss that, I mean the term is self-explanatory. 2. On Saturday April 06, 2002 at 3:18 am, you stated, "the pictures of the Palestinians rejoicing after the event [of 9/11]" -- here you introduced the term "inverted logic" -- its so amusing to witness someone claim to be using logic when he miserably fails at the attempt. Here, you commited an inductive fallacy; you made a "hasty generalization" wherein "the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population" (from "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies" on the web, I BEG you to check it out). I know the footage you are refering to and I clearly remember that there were no more than 5 people "rejoicing." Not like the thousands protesting against Israel these days around the world, mind you AROUND THE WORLD. I can also remember Palestinian authorities clearing up the overblown conclusion, stating that the group was a tiny minority and that once the *joyful* people learned that thousands could be dead in the WTC collapse, they immediately stopped. These same people did not see the towers crash on TV; all they heard [on the radio] was that there was an attack on the US--they thought, "An attack on the US Government? The same entity that supplies Israel with weapons to kill us? Horray!" Get it? So this foolish attempt to paint ALL Palestinians as anti-American is pathetic and petty. Stick to the facts. Then on Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 2:33 am, you stated, "It is disheartening to read that they [Palestinians] would rather die standing than live on their knees." This is very funny because in many ways it mirrors what Pres. Bush said [on Sept 14, 2001 when Congress authorized the use of the US War Powers Resolution against Afghanistan--facts buddy facts, I cite facts, what do you do? Use heresay, pathetic] as he announced to the world the US declares a war on terrorism? Operation Enduring Freedom echos the same sentiments, that is, Americans will not bow to terrorism conducted on 9/11/01; Americans would fight freedom and democracy to death--hence the bombing of Afghanistan. Now just replace "US" with "Palestine;" "9/11" with "35 years of Israeli occupation [in the West Bank and Gaza]" and picture, instead of million-dollar war planes, homemade bombs the Palestinian resistance fighters are left with and then you'll understand the situation for what it really is. And this leads me to you. You seem to have a hard time understanding the Palestinian struggle. Again, crack open a book; read both sides then come up with your own conclusions based on facts, not what you heard on FoxNews or CNN. In doing that I hope you try to put yourself into their shoes because only then would you, could you understand their plight. "Correct me if I'm wrong," but Finland doesn't have oppression. "Correct me if I'm wrong," but colonialism doesn't exists in Finland and "correct me if I'm wrong," but tanks don't smash through your streets and gunmen don't destroy your homes in Finland, do they? So how can you sit in you peaceful home and pass judgement on people (Israeli or Palestinian) that you truly cannot relate to?
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 9:01 am
OK. 1) Check the URL on the "occupied Palestine": http://www.edume.org/reports/1/7.htm. And 2) if the PA said that the rejoicing group was a tiny minority, they were absolutely right, if they meant the five people on TV. And how do you know what I have seen with my own eyes? I have never claimed all Palestinians are anti-American, but to remind you how a tiny minority can reflect the mood of the whole group, I have never seen ANYBODY rejoicing at the destruction of the Palestinian cities. So was that your wisdom in this matter?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 11:35 am
There is a vast area of land which is un occupied and should be given to the palestine people only if they agree to move there. It is in the Saudi desert area called the wilderness. Thery can try it for 40 years and see how it works out. If God is with them they will survive if not, OH well.
Harold Trout
Oregon, USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 1:37 pm
Whoever is in charge of this site should know that they will not keep erasing my thoughts, because I will keep posting them again and again. Have a nice day! *********************************** As far as I'm concerned, I see the most inhumane, unjustful event of the 20th century when Palestinians live under occupation, brutal surppression and intimidation. They have been brutalized, killed and turned into refugees where most of them are born, raised and die without seeing an outside world. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood of Bukhara, Uzbekistan and have many friends who emmigrated to Israel or the United States after the collapse of Soviet Union. I can't call certain people of Israel as Jews, it would be an insult to my friends who live there and who are not Zionists. That's right, the government of Israel is a Zionist government, a brutal descendant of Nazis. Ironically, the very same people who have been the victims of genocide by Nazis are using the same methods of dealing with weaker people. They escaped concentration camps and gas chambers to be the oppressors of other people. No wonder why one of the Israeli generals urged to research and learn the tactics used by Nazis in Jewish Ghettos of Poland against jews during WWII, in order to use them against Palestinians of West Bank and Gaza. Jews of Poland were confined and isolated from the outside world and were eliminated there and that's what exactly the Israeli Army doing. You can break the hands, legs and body but you won't break the will and soul of the Palestinians to fight back the ZIONISTS!!! If you are a Zionist and insulted then think why are you angry now?!?!?
Sheikh Muhammad
USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 1:47 pm
To Grace Gomez-Youssef You gave a very clear understanding that most of the people who mostly "hear" but don't think are confined in their own imaginary world where they judge and condemn with no reference to the reality that is out there. They regard CNN and BBC as Angels of Truth and get engulfed/sucked into this propoganda vacuum where they are go through the "Mindset Adjustment" courses. They remind me the characters in "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. What a pity...
Sheikh Muhammad
USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 1:54 pm
an answer to Jari....I didn'tsay terrorism is not A problem.My point is that in the light of recent events people tend to forget what this conflict is about: it is not about terrorism.It's origin stems from the fact that return and construction by one people took place at the expense of expulsion and destruction of the other. it's a problem of continuing colonisation. LOOK AT THE MAP IN TIME MAGAZINE APRIL 15th PAGE 39 AND ALL IS REVEALED CONCERNING ISRAELI SETTLEMENTOLD AND NEW IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.It's too easy now to use "W's" fight against terrorism as a cover up job for what has been a conflict that existed well before the 11th of september. And as for terrorism, some consider that killing Israeli's by suicide bombings is an act of self defence since the Israeli's OCCUPY Palestinien territory, deny them their rights and in enforcing their rule frequently kill palestinian civilians.It appears that this logic was sufficiently compelling for the 57 Islamic countries, at their conference in Kuala Lumpur, to exempt Palestinian bombers from their definition of terrorism.You'll have to give them more reasons for living than dying if you want it to stop.
Cristine Dardel
Lausanne
Switzerland - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 3:21 pm
A comment to Jari Nousiainen, who in attempts to save face has instead put his foot in his mouth. Let me start by requesting you to stop posting until you have sound evidence for your conclusions. Take your rants to a Yahoo discussion board because "correct me if I'm wrong," but this website is for people with the interest of law in mind. Meaning, those who visit this site have high standards, if you are going to make a claim, back it up with evidence. 1)On Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 9:01 am, you responded to my claim that the Palestinians refer to the Occupied Territories as the West Bank and Gaza with a link to (it's so funny, I can't stop laughing) The Palestinian Authority School Books and Teacher's Guide--HA! Are you serious? I guess my suspicion is correct that you practice selective hearing because if you hadn't already noticed the international community holds my same definition of what the Occupied Territories are, including Palestinian and other Arab officials. And you turn to a teacher's guide as evidence? Couldn't you at least find an entity that is significant in world politics, let alone international law? Additionally, if you were really serious about this why don't you research on the legal questions behind Israel's occupation; here's something to start with, a piece written by my former International Law professor, Burns Weston (University of Iowa, College of Law) "Israel Must Adhere to the Law" The Des Moines Register, April 24, 1985. While you scan American cable news for one-sided [pro-Israeli] coverage on the Middle East, pay attention to the facts. 2)How do I know what YOU saw with your own eyes? Didn't I state that already? I stated that I saw the same footage! (you must be a selective reader as well). Then you say you never claimed that all Palestinian are anti-Americans but then you--in the same sentence--thought you should remind me that "a tiny minority can reflect the mood of the whole group." Ok. I was wrong, it is not the case that you have selective hearing/reading, but you just cannot think logically. Are you or are you not using that "tiny minority" as evidence as proof to reflect "the mood of the whole group?" You are STILL making the SAME hasty generalization! Unbelievable. As for you last comment, that tiny group of Palestinians were not the only ones rejoicing after the WTC crash. There were Chinese people rejoicing. There was even a song created by kids in South Korea praising bin Laden. Sorry my friend but sadly, those Palestinians were not the only ones *rejoicing* after 9/11.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 5:42 pm
Grace, I have something else to add to your comments-- the footage shown on September 11th of the Palestinians rejoicing was reported that it was old footage from the early 90's on CNN. Check it out here http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/
breaking/2001/0919/breaking77.htm In addition-www.counterpunch.org reports that the footage broadcast by CNN of Palestinians celebrating the news of the WTC bombings is fake. The footage has been examined by brazilian researchers and has been deemed identical to footage shot in 1991. Also, please note that it was nighttime when the news reached Palestine" (and only 2- 1/12 hours later daylight footage was broadcast.)
Donna Elreda
New York, USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 5:47 pm
You ask for advice - here's mine. I have no "horse in the race," I am an unbiased American Christian observer of all this in television, that's it. I have no relatives in the region, nor have I ever been there. First - a comment. For the love of God - Israel needs to stop this insanity. What they are doing is absolutely criminal, and if it is not, it sure comes across that way on TV half a world away. I truly feel for, and pray for, the people of Palestine now that I see what you have endured. I hope Sharon rots in hell for this maniacal murderous spree he is on. That is in no way an excuse for suicide bombings, but the excessive use of force on Israel's part in this case is unbelievably cruel. Palestinians - you need to stop the suicide bombings!! Immediately. If you do, you will have the sympathy and the people of the USA behind you, for sure. Now - my advice. Admit one person - Schwarzkopf, H. Norman (known as Stormin' Norman) to the area and have him mediate the situation. He is tough, he is fair, and he is a genius. He does not take sides, and he is probably a "freedom fighter's" best ally. I promise you - don't fool around with diplomats as in the past. Let this man mediate the situation, and go along with what he says, and he can figure it out between both parties. I assure you , I believe he is totally impartial. That's my advice. I wish anyone reading this peace.
Jeff Newman
Birmingham
AL/USA - Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 11:52 pm
Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism rules the secular state of Israel. It is no different then Nazi Germany. If you romantic believers want the TRUTH stop believing in Myths.....Read the book; Jewish History,Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak. The author arrived in Palestine in 1945, a Professor of Organic Chemistry and a life-long human rights activist. He studies Talmud and Rabbinical laws in Hebrew. He also is a Nazi concentration camp surviver. He knows REAL not Myth.
Thomas Donnelly
Califon
NJ,USA - Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 3:31 am
Grace, I don't understand how you can portray yourself as a voice of logic. Who is trying to save his/her face? How can you think that no discussion is necessary because international law is already on your side? You are only hurting the Palestinians' cause, because you obviously don't know all the facets of the conflict, and the problems - past or present - of the countries which the Palestinians want to help them, even less. If you think the PA teacher's guide is not valid evidence, I rest my case. And I don't bother to explain why, because that obviously does not interest you one bit. You said "that tiny group of Palestinians were not the only ones rejoicing after the WTC crash. There were Chinese people rejoicing." Then we hear from Donna that the footage was a fake. Does that then leave only the Chinese people rejoicing? But I have to agree with Cristine, who seems to be the only one representing anything coming even close to reason. When you trace the history of the present conflict, the building of the new settlements at the expense of other peoples' property seems to be the root of the problem, and know matter how one tries to see the problem from the Israeli point of view, that was clearly illegal. It wasn't Sharon visiting the Temple Mount, which only triggered the pent-up frustration. And as for suggestions, Jeff has a lot going for his. I personally would like to put the "stopping the suicide bombings" bit first and leave "Sharon rotting in hell" bit away, but clearly the problem doesn't even inch towards a solution with the present "W" gang. But as for the anti-Zionist comments, that clearly goes too far, because the State of Israel IS Zionism. It would not exist without it. Personally, I have no feelings towards Zionism, but those people are there, and any anti-Zionist remark suggests that they shouldn't, which is simply outrageous. The suggestion that I consider CNN and BBC as Angels of Truth is no less outrageous and shows just how low the level of discussion is. If that is how you intend to win this argument, I wonder what comes next. We have not heard any concrete solution from the Palestinian side but all the more unfounded criticisms of anyone who dares to question the sanity of both sides. There is not even an infinitesimal hint of the Palestinians distancing themselves from terrorism but quite on the contrary plentiful illustrations of how the WTC attack has served their cause. I was asked how I can understand the Palestinian struggle because I live at the comfort of my home. So wasn't that the message the WTC attack was supposed to drive home? Let me guess where you would like to hit next. Intimidation, just pure intimidation. To call the suicide bombings self-defence is just as ludicrous as saying that I could walk on the street with an unlicensed machine gun and as soon as I get trouble with the police, I would shoot them in self-defence, because that is what these bastards have deserved, interfering with my liberties and all. It has been suggested that as long as Israel gets money from abroad, it is not interested in peace, but that appears to apply doubly to the Palestinians, be that support monetary or moral. Can someone state plainly what it is that you want? "Please correct me if I am wrong" but the root of the problem beneath all this appalling rhetoric is the building of the new settlements? Do you even know what the problem is any more than I do?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 12:45 pm
Do the settlers represent an extreme (fundamentalist) wing of the Jewish faith? Are they judgmental like the some describe the Southern Baptists? Are they intolerant like the Taliban? Can we truly move beyond this vitriolic atmosphere so polluted with supremacists and victim mongers?
Jan Lane
Austin
TX - Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 7:20 pm
An answer to Jan Lane of TX. The settlers do NOT represent the extreme wing of Judaism but they ARE Jewish Fundamentalists. These illegal settlers on Palestinian land make life unbearable for Palestinians. They commit illegal acts like vandalism, harassment and even direct violence on Palestinians. They destroy Palestinian water sources and kill their farm animals. Just look at any human rights website (like Amnesty.org) and you'll find many reports on the human rights violations the Jewish settlers have commited. The settlers are not the only ones, Israel sets up check points in these areas (supposedly to "defend" the settlers) manned by the military that also makes normal life unbearable for Palestinians. Palestinians must go through security checks just to travel across town. Injured/sick Palestinians must pass through checkpoints to get to a hospital. Most end up dying at the checkpoints. The International Red Cross is currently protesting because these checkpoints are preventing them from helping wounded Palestinians. And all this has been going on before the 19 months of violence we are now witnessing. For over 30yrs this was the life for Palestinians. Now imagine growing up in this environment. Imagine being an 18yr old living like a second class citizen on your own land. Imagine not having any hope for the future under this occupation. Think of the despair these teenagers have, hence the suicide bombing--for some, of course, not all see this as the solution. PBS did a documentary on the lives of Israeli and Palestinian children not too long ago check out the website: http://www.pbs.org/pov/promises/resources.html. Find out for yourself what drives these young suicide bombers. One last thing, suicide bombers don't pop up out of nowhere. They are products of a certain type of situation and that is occupation/colonization.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 8:15 pm
Jari, without strict adherence to law, there would be chaos. There would be no justice for the victims and security for the public. That is why I suggested that we have to look to internationally recognized laws; laws that everyone [who is involved] agrees on. About the teacher's guide, that is a domestic issue--it has no bearing on the current international conflict. As for history, I'm not against it at all but you gotta cut it off somewhere; we can't argue about "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" One could argue that Jews were expelled by the Romans from present-day Palestine on the 2nd century AD but then the counter would be that the 7th century AD Arab invaders made Moslem converts of the natives [Ilene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan"]--it would never end. We gotta cut it off somewhere. Let's take babysteps, agree on the parameters--which from the looks of it would be the pre-1967 borders--and move to a peace plan. But before anything is written on paper, Sharon has to withdraw and remove the settlers; bottomline, Sharon has to adhere to the laws like everyone else. These laws are UN Sec Council Res. 1397, 1402 & 1403 (laid out in the US gov website http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/#unres) and the Mitchell Report (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm). So I disagree with you that the suicide bombings must end first. Then you claimed that there hasn't been a "concrete solution from the Palestinian side"--isn't the message clear? I bet that if Israel completely withdraws from the Occupied Territories, there would be a great reduction of suicide bombings and a path to a peace plan would be clear. I know what the problem is and it is that Sharon seems to think he is above the law, he thinks he can get away with crimes against humanity by using the self-defense excuse. He and other pro-Israelis like to bring up 9/11 because they know how we, Americans, feel about that. But to bring up 9/11 in the argument is not only a red herring (a distraction) but an appeal to pity and it is disgusting. They don't focus on the real issues and use these distractions to garner support. Israel's Netanyahu is famous for doing that. Everytime he is on CNN, Fox or MSNBC he always, always compares what Sharon is doing now to what the US did in Afghanistan. HELLO! We do NOT occupy Arab land. He knows this talk could sway some Americans to side with him but like I mentioned earlier, watch the news but keep in mind the facts and look out for logical fallicies when in your gut you feel that there's something fishy going on. I mean, when I first heard of the suicide bombings my first question was, "what could drive teenagers to do that?" -- there's something fishy going on.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 9:14 pm
Some points, ancient and modern, with legal implications: 1. The ancient Israelites only occupied "the Holy Land" for about 1200 years from about 1200 B.C. to the time of Jesus. 2. Ancient Israel split into two states: Israel and Judah. The Assyrians later dispersed the inhabitants of ancient Israel into surrounding Middle Eastern areas. Their descendents - the "ten lost tribes" - are integrated and now considered Arabs. Only these people can legitimately claim to ressurrect a "state of Israel" 3. The Palestinians are a mixture of various peoples (Canaanites, Philistines, Arabs) who inhabited the land prior to and subsequent to Israelite rule. Palestinians Christians are desceded from Jews who accepted Jesus. Many Palestinian Muslims are similarly descended from Jews who accepted Islam. 4. The Ashkehnazi Jews who founded Israel are not descended from the ancient Jews. The famous Jewish writer, Arthur Koestler, pointed this out in his book "The 13th Tribe". you cannot "return" to a place that neither you nor your ancestors have been to. 5. A religious ideal of "Next Year in Jeruslaem" has no bearing in international law." The latter does not recognize that any religious group has a right of domicility based on its beliefs. Thus a Polynesian Mormon has no right to live in Utah, nor does a Lutheran have a right to live in Germany, nor a Hare Krishna to reside in India. 6. The expressed purpose of the post-WWI colonial Mandates allowed by the League of Nations in the administering of Palestine, Lebanon, etc. were to advace the interests of native people. The Balfour Declaration and the Zionist immigration it allowed violated this. The Palestinians should be able to sue Britain in international courts for this violation of an international legal trust and recoup compenstion for the damages they suffered as a result.
Krishna Madan
Maui
Hawaii - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 1:59 am
The history of the Palestine/Israeli conflict since the creation of the Jewish state prompts admiration of the determination and resilience of the Jews. It is also replete with examples of GROSS INJUSTICE to the Palestinian people. Additionally, apart from its role in bringing the 1958 Suez conflict to an end, the USA's traditionally pro-Israel bias has compromised its effectiveness as a peace broker in that conflict. Given the foregoing, any solution to that long standing conflict must be based on the following: 1)That there can never be lasting peace without JUSTICE....for BOTH sides 2)That the return of the Palestinian lands to the Palestinian people will go a long way to relieving their anger, frustration and desperation. 3)That MUTUAL RESPECT is a key pre-condition for good, stable and long term relationships between people. 4)That the USA as the ONLY realistic peace broker in this conflict at this time, must be truly EVEN HANDED and OBJECTIVE in playing this role. 5)That "TANK COMMANDER" Sharon and "GUERRILIA FIGHTER" Arafat together pose the biggest possible obstacle to the resolution of this difficult and historical conflict.
Soter Parris
Mandeville
JAMAICA - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 3:11 am
Anyone who attempts to solve this situation by simply categorizing either of the sides as right or wrong will never succeed. Obvioulsy. The problem is copmlicated and has been ongoign for over 50 years (and probably will continue for atelat another 50). Right now the only way i can see for anything to change is through a middle man stepping in and giving each side an ultimatum that they cannot afford to ignore. Because the US is the only country the gives israel billions of dollars every year, i think the bush admin aer the only ones who can give this 'offer'. So, we threaten them with taking away their funds, and we offer the Palestinian money. Make the israelis back out of palestinian territories and STOP THE BUILDING OF SETTLEMENTS and maybe we will find a lull in the violence. in fact, all these nuts who insist that all arabs want all the jews completely destroyed are just that: nuts. i know that there are probably many right wingers that hate all the jews, but most palstinians are not war mongering monsters out to destroy all kipa wearers. i guarantee you. and ifyou do think that, we should atleat take these steps and then we could say for sure wether or not you are right.
renae wilson
tokyo japan (usa) - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 3:22 am
The references to terrorism are not a red herring. We can argue about who rejoiced at the 9/11 attack and who did not, and there seem to be people who have a clear idea of who did and why. But it does not stop there. There were plentiful interviews conducted in the mosques across Britain, where the interviewees (at least those with the most "presence") agreed that they "would all do the same". Does that not illustrate what the magnitude of the problem is? Try to understand how difficult it is for third parties to show any sign of anything but indifference and impotence. A year ago, you might have argued that terrorism is not the root of the Palestinian problem, but after last September you cannot. The Palestinians did not have to be directly responsible, but what I find alarming is the fact that there are so many Palestinian voices trying to justify the attacks. Are all Palestinians so in favour of or at least indifferent to terrorism as it seems, or will you be accused of collaboration and shot to death or what? No sane government can get involved in the conflict, before terrorism is addressed fair and square. It is too bad that the Palestinian cause has been clung to by those who feel oppressed in their own countries and wanting to settle their own old scores use the Palestinian cause to add a touch of respectability to their own acts of terror. But there seems to be a symbiosis with this sympathizers and the Palestinians themselves, because the Palestinians seem only too happy to stand up for the 9/11 acts. The Palestinian Authority said yesterday that if this or that happens, they would do what they can to curb the violence. Well, what CAN they do? Do not give some empty promises but utter an unequivocal condemnation and show what you can do. What may complicate the issue is that if the PA cuts terrorism too abruptly, it may seem to have been in a position to stop it in the first place and makes itself guilty by way of "command responsibility". So the PA seems to have driven itself to an impossible bargaining position, at least if the other party wants it to stop terrorism completely. All the slurs against Sharon apply all the more to the PA. Sharon did not come before the second intifada, the second intifada came before Sharon. Sharon is the prime motor of the current Israeli foreign policy, but he has the support of virtually of the Israeli key figures, including at least the passive support of one Nobel Peace Prize winner, Perez (who shared it with Arafat). And what applies to Sharon, applies to Arafat. They were both democratically elected, and if one is terrorist, so is the other. If one is a criminal, so is the other. The PA may be shooting itself in the foot by calling the suicide bombings legitimate self-defence, because then they must observe the humanitarian law as well, and killing civilians is a blatant violation of it. Sharon is not THE problem. It may be closer to the truth that the new settlements are what have irked the Palestinians, but nobody cares to bring that up, maybe because it sounds too petty, and the Palestinians would lose their support when people start asking: so was that what this was all about? And then you would have to address the validity of the transactions, and if the paperwork is OK, the Israelis would come out clean. All right, so you say this is a domestic matter, just like the PA teacher's guide, but so are the security checks and checkpoints. All can be elevated to the international level just as easily. The reason the references to the "occupied Palestine" covering the whole State of Israel is of international concern is because it is a sign of irredentism. It was just this same kind of irredentism that made Greece withhold its recognition from the Republic of Macedonia for years. And in the case of Palestine the problem is all the more palpable, because the Palestine land area is cut in two (Gaza strip and West Bank), so the Palestinians would have to prepare themselves for the possibility that the Palestine state would end up being two states, just as Pakistan broke into Pakistan and Bangladesh. And if that threat ever materializes, it would be all too easy to blame the Israelis again. So clean up your textbooks, that is the least you can do. And to come back to anti-Zionism. It is true that some Jews have written pretty heavy stuff about other Jews, but a Jew can never be an anti-Semite, whereas we "goyim" can, so out of sheer respect for the writers, let us not use their texts for purposes for which they were never intended. Believe me, I know all this stuff. It is understandable that people get fed up with all the so-called anti-defamation, which can turn into defamation, for asking legitimate questions, and the present conflict is their opportunity to get back at the alleged Jewish media power (and for those of you who are not in the know, the frequent references to CNN and other big media outlets that have come up even in this discussion are all about this conspiracy theory). But those oppressed groups who use the conflict to their own ends, let us not forget that hardly any group has done more to address social inequality. And the way the present conflict is turning, even the alleged media power does seem to have its limits, doesn't it? OK, you have made your point, now let's get back to business. And finally, it is so easy to say: "You can break the hands, legs and body but you won't break the will and soul of the Palestinians to fight back the ZIONISTS". You live on the other side of the globe and you are not even a Palestinian, as you seem to admit. Have you absolutely no compassion with these people who have to pay for your playing jihad or whatever eschatological pipedream it is that you are playing? Have you no idea who you are trying to provoke? Do you think the Israelis are so barbaric that they would break somebody's legs, when they have all the high-tech arsenal to deal with the problem much more efficiently. It is a sign of their generosity that they have hardly even mentioned that possibility (as they should have if they had resorted to some natural-law-like "suicide bombings" -type of logic). Let's respect that. It is the lives on both sides we are trying to save.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 3:51 am
The methods used by Israel to strangle Palestine are far more cunning and sly than is obvious at first.Numerous organisations are alarmed by the unequal distribution of water sharing between israel and the occupied territories. israel and the colonies exploit 80% of underground water resources existing between israel and Cisjourdanie in comparison with 20 % for the palestinians ( Amnesty international figures). this water is the only water ressource in in Cisjourdanie.Israel and the occupied territory's are supposed to share the water from the drainage of the Jourdain: the palestinians have practically no access.The American agency for developpement recommends 100 litres per day per personne as minimal daily requirement. In Cisjourdanie 60 litres including agriculture and industrie against 350 litres in Israel and the colonies.This dates from wll before the actual crisis. There cannot be peace as long as human rights are are delibrately squashed.Peace for the palestinians does not mean forgetting everything they have been fighting for, that is a palestinian state.THE ISRAEL'I MUST PULL BACK TO THE 1967 FRONTIERS BUT THEY DO THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT THE WATER. THEY SHOULD LET THE PALESTINIAN DIASPORA RETURN. THEY WON'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT AS NATIONAL SUICIDE.SO THE ISRAELI'S STRANGLE THEM SLOWLY BUT SURELY. THE ANSWER IS THAT AMERICANS, THE EUROPEANS AND THE ARABS SHOULD FOR ONCE IN HUMAN HISTORY PUT HUMAN NEEDS AND RIGHTS BEFORE THEIR OWN POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL MANOEUVRES.FOOD FOR THOUGHT: I READ AN OLD BOOK RECENTLY ABOUT THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. IT'S AUTHORS SAID IN CONCLUSION"THE MORE ONE EXAMINES THE THREE GREAT RELIGIONS THE MORE ONE WILL DISCERN NOT HOW MUCH THEY DIFFER, BUT HOW MUCH THEY OVERLAP AND HAVE IN COMMON- HOW MUCH THEY DERIVE FROM ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SOURCE- AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH MOST OF THE QUARRELS BETWEEN THEM, WHEN NOT PRECIPITATED BY SIMPLE MISUNDERSTANDING, HAVE STEMMED LESS FROM SPIRITUAL VALUES THAN FROM POLITIQUES, FROM GREED, FROM SELFISHNESS AND THE PRESUMPTUOUS ARROGANCE OF INTERPRETATION. JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM ARE ALL BESET BY A RESURGENT FUNDAMENTALISM.THE GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR COMMON ROOTS MIGHT HELP CURB THE PREDUDICE, THE BIGOTRY, THE INTOLERANCE AND FANATISM TO WHICH FUNDAMENTALISM IS CHRONICALLY PRONE. (MICHEAL BAIGENT AND RICHARD LEIGH). Cristine Dardel
Cristine Dardel
lausanne
switzerland - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 12:25 pm
I am an American and I have marched for the Palestinian cause. I watch the news here and realize how censored it is and that is what keeps us "Americans" ignorant of the current affairs of Israel vs. Palestine. I know that is not an excuse but with the media very clearly pro-Israel they show a lot of the “Jews side of things”. I know in 1948 after World War 2, the British had a mandate over Palestine. With much pressure by the Zionist movement, the British handed over Palestine to the Jews to establish the State of Israel, as if it was their mother's handbag. Well everyone tell me this, If you own a house and land and put your money, sweat, and blood into your property and in a blink of an eye it is no longer yours but someone who comes from other places to claim it as there’s and you loose everything. Are you just going to walk away gracefully?? I know I would not. In 1967 the Israelis claimed the rest of Palestine leaving many refugees who fled Palestine to live in other Arab countries and they are not citizens of that country they have “Travel Papers” not a Passport. So tell me this also why is it okay and fine that the Jews have a Jewish state that it is there right and the Palestinians do not deserve the same right. Sounds a little one sided to me. An American Jew walk’s into a Mosque and shoots people praying and he is not a terrorist and Israel also builds a shrine for this man. First the people he shot are they not civilians?? Why is he a hero and not a "TERRORIST"? But Jews say they do not target civilians well HELLO WAKE UP CALL they shoot women and children and elderly people who are sitting in there house or walking on the street. Because Jews think they own EVERYTHING!!! It sickens me to see the one-way street and how ignorant people can be on a subject and believe everything they hear. I was talking to a Jewish woman who was raised in Israel and here is her way of thinking “There is no other religion except Judaism and that even Christ is a Jew. (I know he was a Jew until he brought Christianity) So in her eyes EVERYONE is a Jew”. Where are my rights to choose in this woman’s eyes? Israeli soldiers in Ramallah gun down a 21-year-old U.S. citizen, Suraida Saleh; the State Department knows, but does nothing; her father buries her in the hospital parking lot because the hospital morgue is overflowing and under the state of siege no one can get to the cemetery. I can understand why no one is standing with the United States at this time when the only Justice is for the Israelis. I am ashamed right now to say that I am American and it sickens me that I “Have” to let President Bush speak for me. I am sorry if this makes no sense I am a little upset so I ramble on. Well from this American I would like to say I am sorry.
Michelle Duke
United States - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 12:54 pm
Jari, what are you talking about? You wrote, "the new settlements are what have irked the Palestinians, but nobody cares to bring that up, maybe because it sounds too petty"--are you blind? I and many others on this message board have been pointing to the settlements as THE PROBLEM! I'm not gonna go over what has already been written, reread what people have written and stop thinking like you are privy to some "great knowledge" that no one else is. And I NEVER claimed that they were a domestic matter, they are the root of the problem, they're existence is a major contention and thereby brought about the Palestinian revolt! The teacher's guide IS a domestic issue; you cannot use that as evidence that the PA's plan is to take over all of Israel. What they teach their kids has no direct influence on the international conflict--you are really reaching here, if we were in court that argument would be irrelevant. As for the "conspiracy theory" behind US media outlets, REALITY CHECK: it's a fact! Fact: the US media hasn't practiced real journalism because of corporate and Jewish ties. This is not a ridiculous claim since if we all would like to be informed consumers we have to know the integrity of our news sources. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that Rupert Murdoch owns FoxNews and the fact that he's Jew who could show a natural tendancy of Israeli bias. This is not all, if you pay close attention to the programs on Fox, you'll find that their reporting is hardly unbiased. You find Netanyahu calling Palestinians barbaric on Fox, such colorful terms is misleading and could incite violence and racism. Don't take my word for it, follow it more closely, see if you see true journalism, see if both sides of the story are told, and see if the presentation of the news is not only accurate but balanced. As for you, I guess you don't seem to mind because you think Israel is so "generous" in keeping threats of physical harm to themselves. WHAT?! We're supposed to greatful that Israel has been able to control itself? Excuse me, what happened to civility? Is it me or is there something wrong with how you're interpreting things?
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Thursday April 11, 2002 at 4:10 pm
The conflict can only be solved when Israel gives up a "right" that no other country has, the use of ethnicity as the determination of citizenship. With the demise of apartheid, Israel is the only country that officially gives priveleges to one ethnic group over another. Americans who would find it abhorrent for the USA to declare itself a "Christian" or "White" nation somehow find it acceptable for Israel to declare itself a "Jewish" nation - ignoring the inevitable, detrimental ramifications of this on non-Jewish inhabitants. We cannot expect the Palestinains to accept being the only people in the world who cannot return to their homes merely because of their ethnicty. Their right to return is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Rights. For the Palestinians to sign away this right is to accept the notion, implicit in the West's support of Israel, that Palestinians are not equal to Jews as human beings.
Krishna Madan
Maui
Hawaii (originally from Guyana) - Friday April 12, 2002 at 12:45 am
President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Members of Congress, How much longer will the United States of America continue to support the State of Israel’s aggression against, expropriation of property, brutal repression of, and continuing murder of the people of Palestine? It is unconscionable that the USA is supporting Ariel Sharon, who is a known terrorist, already convicted by an Israeli court of being responsible for creating the conditions that led to the massacre of over 1700 civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla, while he rampages over Palestine. Israel’s US supported rule of the occupied territories is brutal and inhumane in many respects. It inflicts collective punishment on an entire nation of people, most of whom are guilty only of being Palestinian, and is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Israeli government’s ruthless conduct is cause to have the State of Israel’s name added to the list of terrorist countries. The Oslo Peace Accords are themselves an act of repression and are a tactic that was designed to provide Israel with more time to create additional “facts on the ground”. The strategy was to have such an enormous amount of Israeli infrastructure built up on occupied territory by the time the “final talks” began, that no one would expect Israel to give it all up. But Israel has built unlawfully and they have built on stolen ground. They must return to the pre-war 1967 boundaries, remove all settlements, return expropriated areas of East Jerusalem and recognize it as the Capital of a new State of Palestine, recognize the right of return of the Palestinians who were thrown off of their own land and out of their homes, and return control of the water rights to the rightful owners, the Palestinian people, the people who were, and who have been, living on the land from which the State of Israel was created before the State of Israel ever existed. The Palestinians are engaging in acts of terror because, when faced with the unrelenting desire of the Zionist Israeli government to own, control, and dispossess the Palestinian people of the land that rightfully belongs to them, combined with the overpowering political and financial support and the disgraceful bullying of the UN that the United States of America has thrown behind Israel and against the Palestinians, the Palestinians have no other choice. The Palestinians can’t even go to the United Nations for help because the United States will torpedo any attempt that might bring into the daylight the crimes that Israel has been perpetrating against the Palestinian people for the last half of a century. And make no mistake; the USA is as responsible for the continuing oppression and murder as is Israel. It is the unwavering political support, the billions of dollars of annual financial support and the military strength of the USA, that keeps the Israeli guns loaded and firing, the occupation intact, and allows the US and Israel to flaunt international law and disregard the most basic human rights. It is the United States of America and Israel that are responsible for the continuing illegal expropriation of Palestinian ground and construction of illegal Israeli settlements. It is the United States of America and Israel that are responsible for the bulldozers, sniper bullets, tank artillery, machine gun fire and rockets, delivered from American made helicopter gunships and illegal Israeli settlements, that routinely destroy the homes and businesses of Palestinian civilians and rip the bodies of innocent people, including children, to bloody shreds. I am an American citizen who believes that our country should be a strong citizen of the world, but not the bully of the world. As an American citizen I demand that the USA stop funding Israeli aggression, stop blocking United Nations efforts for peace in Palestine and start supporting UN observers on the ground and an international peace keeping force. The crimes being committed against the Palestinian people must be stopped! NOW!
Timothy J. O\'Keeffe
Clearwater
Florida USA - Friday April 12, 2002 at 2:41 am
It is interesting that I am the only one accused of having deficient legal standards. "If we were in court"? What court would that be? There is no such court! And even if there were, the principle of equality of arms would apply, so you could not present your case and act as a judge at the same time, as you are doing now. As for your case, you say you "I and many others on this message board have been pointing to the settlements as THE PROBLEM". No you haven't. Others have. If you want a legal analogy, what we are doing here is what a jury is doing before reaching a verdict. But that applies only if want to play a lawyer who is desperately trying to win a case. This forum is what it says: Middle East discussion. All you can do is score some points or, as in your case, lose some. In politics, you take what you get. You can't turn down a generous offer out of principle and risk losing everything and say that the other side are bastards. You said I cannot use the PA teacher's guide's philosophy on the occupied Palestine as evidence that the PA's plan is to take over all of Israel. Listen to yourself! Do you think this part is the only one worth quoting out of the teacher's guide? Should you be grateful to Israel for not resorting to heavier weaponry? Of course not! You don't have to be grateful to anybody for anything. By this logic, the worst thing that could happen to you is peace. I heard an Egyptian political old-timer say yesterday in a documentary on Sadat that the Palestinians have no political instinct, and I am now willing to believe him. That was on the global French TV5, which may be run by the Jews too. Don't push too hard. The scarce water resources are a legitimate concern. After all, the whole area is basically a desert and the Jews have a reputation, deserved or not, for being somewhat unscrupulous in their dealings. It takes only an international presence (exactly who is another thing) and/or an international consortium to manage the water resources. The worst thing that could happen is build a buffer zone between the two parties, who would have to learn to live together. But that is not what I hear. What I hear is an insatiable thirst for revenge against the Jews, or if that is putting it too mildly, a blind murderous hatred against them. They can be a pain in the neck but that does not justify doing away with them. Are you really willing to enter that sort of popularity contest? And the longer this discussion drags on, the more evident it becomes that terrorism is an integral part of the Palestinian struggle. Do you think that the Palestinians are the only people with the resolve to fight for one's freedom? I just remembered that my country is one of the four - more or less official - "friends" of Israel, and if you want ideals, I am not going to jeopardize that legacy. I have all the compassion in the world with the suffering Palestinians, but it is becoming ever more evident that it is their own aspirations that are turning against them. And no, Israel is not the only country to use ethnicity as the determination of citizenship. The Republic of Ireland has something similar. There are many countries that have the principle of "jus soli" according to which citizenship belongs to the children of citizens. The Palestinians just lost my vote. Are you moving to your concluding remarks or are you just trailing what I say?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday April 12, 2002 at 2:44 am
In the name of public interest, I meant jus sanguinis.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday April 12, 2002 at 3:54 am
Timothy I think you have really put things in a nut shell......all we need now is for somebody to listen and just do it.
Cristine Dardel
Lausanne
Switzerland - Friday April 12, 2002 at 1:46 pm
An African story goes like this. "A man looks up at the sky, points at it, and exclaims. A fool nearby, seeing the upraised finger, thinks it is the comet the man mentioned." Palestinian fanaticism is the ugly finger that distracts even intelligent and well-meaning Westerners like Jari from the blazing conflagration of Israeli oppression to which the finger actually points.
Krishna Madan
Maui
Hawaii - Friday April 12, 2002 at 3:06 pm
EXCUSE ME Jari, if you were reading carefully, from my very first response to you on Tuesday April 09, 2002 at 5:39 am when I tried to clear up your definition of what the Palestinians claimed as the occupied territories I brought up the "ILLEGAL jewish settlers" which can be infered as the settlers of (what you called) the new settlements. Additionally, I provided a link in my Wednesday April 10, 2002 at 8:15 pm response to you to the Mitchell Report that specifically addresses the ILLEGAL Israili settlements issue (guess you didn't think to look at it). You are WRONG AGAIN, I have always known that the settlements were the problem. And as for me losing points, um...I think you better read what others are writing. It seems clear to me that I am on the same side of the majority of the people involved here. That's all I want to write, I apologize to everyone else who wasted their time reading our exchanges but I hope they realize that I had to clear things up with Jari. I promise that for my part it is over. FYI, so that it isn't a complete waste for others, I heard on Pacifica radio that Amnesty is investigating on whether the guns the Israeli military are using are US made and if so, it would be against US policy for Israeli soilders to aim/shot at civilians. I see one hurdle, proving that the soilders who may have harmed a civilian with a US-made gun did it accidently or intentionally.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Friday April 12, 2002 at 3:39 pm
Just to clarify what I mean when I claim that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are *illegal* is that they are in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions to which Israel is a party. The other side would claim that it was a prize for the victor (like my friend Jari who calls them merely "new settlements" and that if we investigate the papers we would find that the transfer of property was legitimite, everything would be ok--NOT). Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions states (again, an international treaty Israel signed), "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Additionally, "the Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure." (John Quigley, "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.) Renowned & respected retired politician, Zbigniew Brzezinski said on tv that Israel has been behaving like the white supremacist regime of apartheid South Africa.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Friday April 12, 2002 at 5:29 pm
Arafat has become elderly, his mind has been consumed by dogs, he and his stupid little band of dogs have carved a similar place in history as Hitler, and have cheapened a peace prize so why not give him the triple crown by naming him and the entire Palestine population, war criminals, for their personal war crimes. Bill Gordon L. Stafford
Bill Stafford
Amarillo
Texas - Friday April 12, 2002 at 8:32 pm
Folks, let's clean this up. This is a reputable site and we should keep the discussion at the level of the noble ideals we all believe in. If someone writes inappropriately, please do not respnd in kind. We can demonstrate here that the cycle of violence need not continue. More specifically, we can criticize Israel and Zionism without defaming Jewish people. We can criticize Arafat and Hamas without defaming Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. This being a law site, we should particularly focus in on legal arguments. Aloha to you all.
Krishna Madan
Maui
Hawaii - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 1:00 am
I am writing this tonight after spending hours on the internet looking for a place that is serious about the mideast crisis. I am a California attorney; I am also a American-Palestinian. On 9/11, I knew that the mideast would become a pivotal issue...my heart was broken at the WTC situation but i knew deep in my heart that sooner or later, it would be the Palestinians who would end up at the short end. I condemn the suicide bombers but i cannot honestly say that I don't understand why they do what they do...I am appalled at the media coverage and how much cover they are willing to give. Has anyone else noticed that the massacres of Palestinians have been totally censored from the news while on a minute by mintue basis, our screens are flooded with today's bombing incident. is the press asleep at the wheel here? I grew up when the press would go to any lengths to get a story...now, they have become mouth-pieces for Israel. Israel needs US condemnation; Israel has thumbed its nose at our idiot president and is using our tax dollars to bomb and destroy the people in refugee camps. So, what is the answer? How can i help out here in California? What can I do other than get upset and angry and feel totally helpless? Sarah Belletto, San Rafael, CA
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 3:22 am
sarah , I woke this morning (as I have for many mornings now) with the same feeling of total helplessness. But this morning it's worse.Having confirmation that Colin Power's visit to Israel is nothing more than a face saving manoeuvre and that they have every intention of accepting that the Isreal's continue their dirty work...I feel sick.why did he take so long to get there in the first place.To arrive as we say in french "comme la pluie aprés les vendanges" suggests that he has been first occupied in negotiating allies if they get rid of Arafat. Over here, in the press there has been talk for a while about a double game. We all know the way the USA has a particular way of underhanded methodes for manipulating geopolitiques (Chile).As well as american newspapers, if you read in french, try some french newspers (Le Monde) they are not under the boot of the jewish lobby and therefore less biased.The supercilious smile on Sharon's face after Colin Powell's visit leaves me with the very nasty impression that Arafat has just been stabbed in the back.
cristine dardel
Lausanne
switzerland - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 4:13 am
Krishna, we can use your saying both ways: the fact that you say that the Palestinian fanaticism is a distraction does not mean that Israel is to blame. Palestinian fanaticism does not help at all. But it is not just fanaticism. There is something fatally wrong with the Palestinian leadership and their conception of what politics is for. It may sound crude to agree with Bill's condemnation of Arafat, but in our quest to pinpoint the problem I think a lot of the problem can be attributed to him. It seems OK to critisize Bush and Sharon, why would it be so scandalous to say that the Palestinians deserve better? This is to say nothing about Hamas, Islamic Jihad and so on. What worries me to no end is my growing conviction that these latter are the real voice of the people and Arafat is trying to stay in power by wooing them, and even dissenting Palestinians are simply trying to stay alive by staying in some kind of terms with them. And of course, terrorist organizations are not stupid either, they can orchestrate a grotesque publicity stunt for the Palestinian cause anywhere. But to start with what we have got, I honestly have to question Arafat's statesmanship, and as long as he IS Palestine, the future seems pretty bleak (which doesn't mean that the alternatives are necessarily any better). He is only obscuring the issue, and I think this is the reason why we, intelligent though we are, have such difficulty identifying the REAL problem after a considerable period of time. The appeal to the new settlements is a slippery slope, no matter how you are trying to nail it down (after considerable effort, I might add, but let's leave it at that). I don't have the Geneva conventions at hand, but I know that by "occupation" it means the military occupation of another sovereign state. Not so in case of Palestine. The Palestinian territories were carved out of the State of Israel, and in its way to statehood the Palestinian Authority is, as it were, the occupying power (which of course does not mean that article 49 applies to it). But now at least I can understand why the PA is so eager to talk about military occupation: so that they can invoke article 49. In terms of classical international law, Palestine is still part of the State of Israel, and no state can occupy itself illegally, unless it has agreed to demilitarize certain areas, which may be more to the point here. That still does not mean that you can talk about an "occupying power". To show you that I am in good faith, I have to give credit to Krishna for bringing up what I think might be the central issue. At some point, I don't know when, the Palestinians were deprived of their Israeli citizenship. What did they get in return? Nothing. What they should have got was a state of their own or a citizenship in some other Arab state, neither of which has happened. So we have this grey area, which does not even have a definite international status, because it is not under international administration, like the ones we have in Kosovo or earlier in Cambodia. And why not? Let me guess, because Israel said no? If so, this might be the core of the problem. And after all this arguing, let us not forget that Israel has legitimate interests too, and some financial ones too, because were it not for Israel, the place would still be pretty much desert. I agree with Cristine (again) that somebody needs to listen to the Palestinians, but it is equally true that they need somebody to speak for them, and the present leadership would be a poor excuse for leadership for any country. And for our American friends, I can understand (now) your frustration with the one-sided pro-Israel view in the media coverage. I would say the opposite was the problem in Europe at least until quite recently. And FYI, I don't get CNN, I only watch it at hotels when there is nothing else on.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 4:18 am
P.S. To get back to the issue of Israel being a "Jewish state", Albania was originally set up as a "muslim state" in the London agreement of 1915(?).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 7:22 am
Jari I think you have a point there. The general consensus of opinion is that Arafat is inadequat."Mr Arafat's brillance as a resistance leader, keeping the gleam of palestian nationalism alive against all adversities, has been matched by lamentable bungling as chief executive of the Palestinian Authority. He dithered over the intifada, sometimes encouraging it, sometimes trying to check it, more often letting it take it's own course. Control slipped from him to the heads of the militia. Now, having helped to bring disaster on his people he is again the brave resistance leader as sharon set's out to distroy him."This seems to me to be a pretty fair analysis.what diffentiates his bungling incompetance and that of "W" and sharon is power. "W" is a bafoon who knew nothing about foreign politics when he came into power. Some say he was the laughing stock of america until the 11th of september when he suddenly discovered his "statesman qualities".As for Sharon, he was found responsable in the kahan report "for disregardig the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the phalange against the population in the refugee camps ...for not taking this danger into consideration when he decided to let the phalange into the camps and for for not taking appropriate measures to prevent or limit this danger". In my book these are it diplomatic non commital terms for saying he did deliberately.He has not changed. But the thing is these are the people that the world has to deal with. This is what the responsability of voting is all about.But that is not a justification in my eyes to even consider assasinating any one them (as Sharon suggested for arafat).
cristine dardel
Switzerland - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 10:16 am
I believe Arafat is being given a great opportunity with the Colin Powell visit. A well orchestrated meeting would be hughe asset for Arafat. Imagine for example if, in front of millions of television viewers, Arafat "pulls a Ghandi" and emotionally denounces - in Arabic and English - suicide bombings. He would immediately win the PR war. This would rally the whole international community to pressure Israel to accept Arafat as the leader of the palestinian people, and whom peace negotiations must be mediated with. It would also argue for the Israeli army to withdraw from Palestinian territories. If the Israeli army failed to leave, then Israel would be the pariah. If army pulled out, then Arafat gets his objective - for the Israeli army to stop the mayhem in the palestinian territories. If the suicides bombings stopped, then there would be even more international pressure on Israelis to withdraw, and accept Arafat as the spokeperson for the Palestinians. If the suicide bombings were to continue, then Arafat has totally dissasociated himself from these hideous actions, but would still come across as a peace initiator. He could at this point ask for international help in dealing with the bombings,as contrasted to the current actions carried by the israeli army.
Howard Martinez
RI/USA - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 11:30 am
I find it interesting that no one ever refers to the fact that the Arab countries were allied with the Nazi's during World War 11 and their tactics and beliefs do not seem to have changed since. They are tolotarian governments with deep hates and deprive their woman and others of basic rights. The best thing that Isreal could do would be to have a crash program to develope a fuel efficient angine and to do whatever they could to help make the world less dependent on oil. Without Arab oil, there would be no middle east problem. As for the current Palestine/Isreal situation, it seems to me that for two parties to want peace, they have to want it bad enough to make the necessary sacrifices. Putting an international "peace force" between the parties will not do anything but embroil others into this angry mess. If Isreal could not stop the homocide bombers, how could an international peace force. Returning Isreal to the 1967 borders under these hatefull and dangerous conditions further jeprodises their security and even their existance. Do not forget,that the Palestinian maps do not even show That Isreal even exists,and I believe that is their ultimate goal.
Frank OIin
New York, USA - Saturday April 13, 2002 at 1:27 pm
There is a misconception that the Palestinian State was carved out of an Israeli State. If we look at the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947 (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0) it can be cleared up. For those who don't care to read the long document I have quoted the key fact: 1)"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948." (Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE). Therefore, Palestine, which was a British Mandate prior the concept of Israel, was the original territory and that it is the other way around--the Jewish State was carved out of Palestine. If you check out the website I included you can view a map of the original boundaries of 1948 of the area in question, before all the wars erupted. As for the argument that Israel does not violate international laws [with its Jewish settlements on Arab territories after the 1967 war], I have included a website for that as well: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm. Is we take a look at SECTION 111, OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, Article 49, the last statement is as follows: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." This directly addresses the anti-colonialism concept. It is not about military occupation, it is clearly about the ILLEGAL Jewish settlements. And if that's not enough, we can look back at UN Res 181 [that laid out the concept of Israel] wherein it states, "During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State, and no Arab shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Jewish State, except by special leave of the Commission." In conclusion, I contend that Israel has violated international laws and to me, above all else, with regard to ending the Mid East conflict, we must demand that Israel adhere to the law. Furthermore, this is the same view that the international community shares and more importantly it is something the US govt demands. When you hear Bush declare that Sharon withdraw without delay and stop the settlements, he is pointing to these violations that Israel has commited. Folks, I am not claiming anything new. I am looking at the facts.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 12:16 am
I find it amazing that in none of the comments to this point is there any mention of the fact that there are powerful groups in Palestine which have declared very openly that they are utterly disinterested in peace, nor is there the slightest mention of the fact that it is, whether you like it or not, Mr. Arafat who has broken every peace accord he has made. He has the temerity to say one thing in English and another in Arabic, as if we have no translators, and, in fact, he has not been, is not now, and never will be a "peace partner". This group needs the doctor to prescribe some moral clarity - a "sticking point" on which you base all other conclusions...and here it is: Nothing justifies homicidal bombings. Get it? NOTHING. It is when you wander away from this fundamental point of moral law that you lose your way.
Brian Taylor
Washington/USA - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 6:16 am
HELLO Brian......cou,cou the same feelings are on both sides . Don't forget that.
cristine dardel
Switzerland - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 6:34 am
I visited the website with the partition plan. At the top it says: "The resolution was accepted by the Jews in Palestine, yet rejected by the Arabs in Palestine and the Arab states." Remember, this was the resolution that stipulated: "During the transitional period no Jew shall be permitted to establish residence in the area of the proposed Arab State" etc. As for the meaning of the "occupied territories" in the Geneva conventions, I think there is a mix-up with the "non-self-governing territories" of the UN Charter. And even if those points that you raised were true, it would make nonsense of some Israelis admission that the Palestinians were deprived of their Israeli citizenship. The above-mentioned resolution stipulates separate citizenships for the Jewish State, the proposed Arab State and separately for the City of Jerusalem. I am no expert, but it could be this last point that brought the whole resolution down. Indeed, if there were a common citizenship for all, no hassle about the states and their borders would be necessary. But would it be in the Palestinian leadership's interests to be assimilated to the State of Israel? For that is the only option, because the State of Israel was all that the above-mentioned resolution brought into existence. In this sort of multi-ethnic Israel the Jews would of course have the greatest political weight but the Palestinians would be infinitely better off than they are now. And the Palestinians being the best-educated Arabs, even that would not need to be a problem. The Israelis have said that Palestinians were deprived of their Israeli citizenship because of demographical worries, but that was years before the collapse of the East bloc, which brought the current stream of immigrants to the land. Morally, I agree with Grace. It is reprehensible to relegate the Palestinians to the outer darkness, and then as need arises, start nibbling at the little they have got left. But the more one investigates the matter, the more plausible it becomes that the Israelis' paperwork is "kosher", and it is the Palestinian leadership that has brought the calamity on themselves. And this was years before the U.S. had any such interest in Israel as it does now.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 12:53 pm
To Cristine Dardel of Switzerland, everytime I hear someone claim that Arafat has been an obstacle to every peace attempt I have this great urge to ask, "What do you mean by that?" What does s/he base that conclusion on? What are the premises for this argument. Because often times s/he cannot answer this follow-up question in great detail. S/he may mention things learned from US news sources but there would be no clear understanding of the facts as they really are. This person could not answer what, specifically, it was in Oslo or Camp David that the Palestinians (and others) could NOT support. And without a clear understanding of the legitimate gripes of the other side, one cannot truly claim that his/her argument [against it] is valid.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 1:39 pm
to Grace...I very rarely read US news sources because they are partial and under the influence of the Jewish lobby ( read my comment to Sarah belloto april 13 ) but because I defend the actual Palestian cause does not stop me from trying to be as objective as I can.The quotes that I made are from European journals (english, Swiss or frenc). I translated them if necessary. You made a personal remarque to jari that she should read the previous comments.Maybe you should try it too.Defending the palestian cause does mean that they are beyond criticism.I also think that there is a case of mistaken identity as I don't recall having said that Arafat has been "the obstacle to every peace attempt".it is neither my personal opinion nor in the quotation that i made.
Cristine dardel
switzerland - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 1:40 pm
I maintain that Israel was "carved" out of the [British-ruled] Palestine [Mandate]. Jari, you argued that "the Palestinian territories were carved out of the State of Israel" (Saturday April 13, 2002 at 4:13 am) and this was your premise to conclude that "the Palestinian Authority is, as it were, the occupying power (which of course does not mean that article 49 applies to it)" 1) Whether or not the Arabs accepted UN Res 181 is irrelevant because it was approved on November 29, 1947 (your attempt can be viewed as Arab-bashing--correct me if I'm wrong but that is the only reason for bringing it up, right?); 2)The claim that the State of Palestine came out of Israeli territory (which suggests that Palestine is taking land away from the Jews) is COMPLETELY INVALID. One may ignore the existance of Palestine as a British-ruled territory and accept that 3 separate states were created in 1947 but NEVER, NEVER claim that Palestine didn't exist before Israel. 3)Now that it is established that the Palestinians NEVER occupied Israeli territory, your claim that the Palestinian Authority is the occupying power [of the West Bank and Gaza] is also COMPLETELY INVALID. These areas were given to the Arabs via UN Res 181 and after the 1967 war Israel built Jewish settlements and transported Israeli citizens there so ISRAEL IS THE OCCUPYING POWER. More importantly, ARTICLE 49 of the Geneva Convention DOES APPLY. This is true and like I mentioned it is a view shared by others. Why do you think the Bush Administration is supporting the Saudi Plan that exchanges normal relations for an "Israeli withdrawal from land it gained in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war"? The US, Israel's strongest ally, admits that the settlements are in violation of international law (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text/0313unres1397.htm). Do I need to provide more evidence?
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 2:07 pm
Christine, I was in no way commenting on you. I was adding voice to your response to Brian Taylor of Washington. I did not wish to respond to Brian because he obviously does not want to provide any evidence for his claims and just wants to rant about his personal views of this crisis. But as a comment to your suggestion that I may support the Palestinian cause to no end, is really irrelevant, to me. You [and others] may want to express your theories on which leadership (Israeli or Palestinian) is failing at what but I choose not to. I prefer to look at things that cannot be directly attributed to politics. I have a great interest in laws (domestic and international). I choose to argue with legal documents in mind, that's all. Therefore, I apologize to you and to others if I may have hit a personal cord in my remarks. Please know that my comments are solely based on arguments presented on this discussion board. I will comment on someone else's argument if I see that there is a flaw in it or if I find that it is worth my time, otherwise I leave it alone.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Sunday April 14, 2002 at 3:53 pm
Grace ....once again you quoted me as saying YOU support the palestinian cause "TO NO END".I did not say " to no end".I respect totally your desire to argue with legal documents in mind but please be loyal to what has been said. That is also a legal requisite, don't you agree? Thank for your apologie....I appreciate it.
cristine dardel
switzerland - Monday April 15, 2002 at 3:22 am
Grace, you asked me to correct you if I am wrong, so I have to reply that you are wrong. The accusation of Arab-bashing is totally irrelevant. My criticism of the Palestinian leadership was initially based on the Egyptian views. I have a great admiration for Anwar Sadat and his successor Hosni Mubarak, and as the discussion proceeds, an equally deep consternation at the level of Palestinian politics. Similarly, accusing Brian of "ranting" can only be based on (your perception of) his disagreeing with you. Nothing changes the fact that the Palestinians turned down the resolution that they are now trying to invoke. Neither has anybody denied that Israel is OK with the creation of a Palestinian state, and even if subsequent documents have taken the centerstage, the creation of the state can still be based on the original partition plan. But the Palestinians have to make up their minds soon. It has been 55 years since the passing of the resolution, and I am still not clear if that is what they want or not (particularly as far as the status of Jerusalem is concerned). And even if the Palestinians have the right to their own state, it is up to themselves to use that right. "Nation-building" is a fairly new concept, and where that has been tried so far, building a nation with the help of international community (i.e. the U.S.) has failed. Besides, it is utter folly to think that creating a state would automatically bring peace. If that were so, the history of Europe, where the modern states were first created, would be a history of peace and prosperity. Maybe people would like to think of Europe in those terms. The reason Europe is now a relatively stable region is due to their mutual integration. Nothing illustrates this better than the peace process in Northern Ireland. You can have fixed borders and so on, but that does not change the fact that you needed a joint administration between the two parties. The reason I put this proposal reservedly is because they tried a somewhat similar tripartite administration in Lebanon, and the rest is history. The attempt to present the Israeli "occupation" in terms of anti-colonialism is an anachronism. Once the colonial power has been driven out, you cannot go on with the process of creating new states after a post-colonial state has been created (and I might add that the colonial power in this case was not Britain, who only got the mandate from the League of Nations, but the Ottoman Empire, or Turkey!). Maybe this explains the desperate need to find a scapegoat in the form of the U.S., the neo-colonial giant. There was some pretty good advice given to Arafat earlier, but even if he manages to portray himself as the great bringer of peace, people do remember that the intifada began before the Israeli incursions. The best short-term plan is to build a Palestine peace movement. Just look at how well that has worked in Israel. It is now the peace movement inside Israel that the media are focusing on. But the bottom-line is whether it is peace the Palestinians want or war.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday April 15, 2002 at 10:59 am
I would like to take the opinion of the group on the fundamental refusal for suicide (homocide) bombing that all sides (including PA) proclaim. How would you compare it to carpet bombing that was practiced quite openly in WWII, Vietnam, etc? I am not saying they are equivalent I am just trying to establish what is it that we abhore: 1) the fact that the killer dies? 2) the fact the killing is not done by uniformed personel? 3) the fact that the killing is not done by a state that could be held accountable? 4) alternatively are we saying that both are objectionable, and even if we accepted carpet bombing a few years ago, our moral standards would not tolerate them today? By the way I am asking those questions with no irony whatsoever.
Shibl Mourad
Montreal
Canada - Monday April 15, 2002 at 3:07 pm
I'm gonna continue to refer to them as suicide bombers. I don't think there's much value in changing it now except to appeal to the emotions of people who may not have the same values as those who came up with that catch-phrase.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Monday April 15, 2002 at 5:17 pm
The suicide/homicide bombings run counter to the ideas of discrimination and proportionality that are central to the rules governing the just and fair conduct of a war ("jus in bello").
The just and fair conduct of war usually requires that there be a discrimination between combatants and non-combatans, and that non-combatants not be targetted. Suicide/homicide bombers deliberately target non-combatants.
And even when dealing with combatants, the just and fair conduct of war requires that the violence be proportional, that it be tempered, that it not be extreme, that it minimize destruction and casualties.
Wading into a crowd of unarmed people (combatants or non-combatants) and destroying them with explosives strikes some people (myself included) as an extreme over application of violence.
What's the difference between WWII bombings and suicide/homicide bombers? Civilian casualties, although forseen and expected, were not the primary intention of WWII bombings. Civilian casualties were a "double effect" of the primary intention of destroying military/industrial targets. The doctrince of "double effect" recognizes that even where civilian casualties in war are inevitable, civilians ought never to be the intended target.
When non-combatants are intentionally targetted and destroyed with disproportionate violence, it is murder, and not war.
When one or both sides refuse to renounce murder for what it is -- an illegitimate use of force, regardless of how legitimate the struggle -- it begins to look as if those parties have chosen an all-or-nothing approach to the conflict.
Brian Taylor wasn't ranting in his earlier posting. He was stating want to many of us is obvious: (a) that nothing justifies homicidal bombings; and, (b) that homicidal bombings are the actions of a people who have convinced themselves that, in the end, they are not going to have to live in peace with the people who are their enemies today because they have decided that they will either eliminate their enemy from the face of this earth, or eliminate themselves in the process.
Tom Stock
Arizona/USA - Monday April 15, 2002 at 6:01 pm
My recommended solution: Palestinians give up their right of return, and in exchange, they gain possession of all the Israeli settlements. A Palestinian state is created, the borders of which are the pre-war, 1967 boundaries.
Kristin Hedges
Washington
DC - Monday April 15, 2002 at 10:26 pm
To Tom Stock and (my buddy) Jari. Brian Taylor was RANTING; he made claims without backing them up. He claimed the following: 1)"there are powerful groups in Palestine which have declared very openly that they are utterly disinterested in peace" -- How the hell do I know that this is true? He didn't cite any books nor did he give any links. 2)"Mr. Arafat who has broken every peace accord he has made." --this could be argumentative but I couldn't say for sure since HE DIDN'T BACK IT UP. 3)"[Arafat] has the temerity to say one thing in English and another in Arabic. --PROVE IT! What does he base this on? I wouldn't know since he didn't back up his accusation. And 4)'[Arafat] has not been, is not now, and never will be a "peace partner".'--Based on what evidence? Jari, how would you or I know whether I disagree with Brian? He didn't provide any details, did he? Tom, how could you know that Brian was stating what many of us thinks is obvious, he didn't give any details, did he? How could you know he was even refering to suicide bombers? I'm not gonna guess what's on his mind, so therefore I see his posting as a simple rant. Just like the rants of DC who thought that the Kurds and African Americans were just "disgruntled minorities" -- what's up with that?
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Monday April 15, 2002 at 11:33 pm
To Krishna Madan letter from April 11 letter I must say that your stating that "We cannot expect the Palestinains to accept being the only people in the world who cannot return to their homes merely because of their ethnicty" is so misleading that is sounds almost unbelievable. Please ask the Chech or the Pole government if the German population that was deported fron their counteries right after WW2 can go back to their homes. Ask the same of the Indian and Pakistany government about the 1947 refugees. And this is just very fea examples from a very long list. The fact is that from tens of millions of post WW2 refugees in the world, the Palestitnians are the only group who stayed as refugees in camps and did not find new homes in other countries. They are the only group whose leaders are dealing and trading in their suffering.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 1:19 am
What is the definition of a terrorist? A person who directly performs acts of terrorism against civilians, or a person who indirectly is involved and oversees acts of terrorism. So, what i want to know is, what part did Mr. Sharon have in Sabra and Shatila in 1982? Did he order the Falangists, an Israeli-allied Lebanese militia, to destroy armed resistance with minimal civilian casualty, or tell them to get the job done by any means necessary? To make a long story short, an Israeli commission of inquiry ruled in February 1983 that he bore "indirect responsibility" for the massacres in Sabra and Shatila. So, what should a man be considered if his orders resulted in the deaths of over 2000 people whom were mostly civilian? A Hero? A Humanitarian? A Terrorist? If this man is a hero, wonderful. He has the virtues of a leader. But if his actions, past and present, clearly define the basic terms of what a terrorist is, than is he fit to be a leader? In Israel's eyes, Mr. Arafat should not be a leader, since he is a terrorist, hence, he can not bring about true peace. On the other hand, Mr. Sharon, whom also has a past of overseeing incidents of death and destruction, is considered by Israel as great leader. A leader who will bring about peace. And this man will tell his people that he is fighting to stop terrorism. And the people listen with open ears. But that's all they want to hear. And that's all they want to see. They forget about who this man really is, what he has done and what actions he is presently capable of. My point being is that the truth is painful and so being, is easily deniable. And it's also easy to label other governments the source of terrorists, but not of your own. This truth will upset many who believe nation is more important than anything, even humanity. And as a matter of fact, I believe the first person who's going to read this is going to click the delete button without hesitation. Unless we look around and accept the true reality of what is RIGHT and WRONG and push away false perception, we will never have any true disclosure.
Bobby Latmer
Manhattan
NY/USA - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 2:33 am
The Americans chose George W. Bush, because everybody could feel superior to him. The Israelis chose Ariel Sharon, because they know he is not afraid of showing muscle (if that is an appropriate way to put it). But what is Arafat's excuse? This man stays in power no matter what he does or does not do. He is a weasel, and like all weasels, he will go through all the motions that people want to see in order to stay in power. That is why I believe that a credible Palestinian peace movement could bring about a change in the Palestinian politics. Whether such a movement would have any chance of surviving is quite another matter, and as a matter of fact I doubt it very much. But as long as Arafat stays in power, it is pointless to go on about the crimes or shortcomings of his counterparts. Crimes should not be overlooked no matter who perpetrates them, but neither can they be used as an excuse to cover the multitude of Arafat's sins.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 3:28 am
Jari....come on now."Arafat's sin's"...I don't believe this. Your doing the same Grace did.These political personalities are all the same.Do you know what we call Sharon here? It's pronunciation in french is almost the same as "charogne" which in french means carrion.So you can imagine the opinion people have of him.Your selective memory is working again...he was the personne responsable for what happened in Sabra ans chatila.The Kahan report concluded this but could not or would not find proof.Even the Israel's where and (400,000) were out in the street."Crimes should not be overlooked no matter who perpetrates them" you said. I think you should think about one.
Cristine Dardel
Switzerland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 3:43 am
The first thing that has to be understood is that Arafat has been chosen in 1968 to be the chairman and leader of the PLO. And presently, the majority of the Palestinian people recognize him as a legitimate leader. In addition, most if not all members of his committee support him and have explicitly shown their support for him. And these committee members have pledged full support for the ultimate resolution, which is peace. Now, what positive outcome will result from the removal of a person whom by his own people is considered a legitimate leader? Let us just assume that he is no longer in power. In addition, as you stated, an alternative government, presumably Arafat’s cabinet members, assumes control but eventually fails. So, where does this leave the Palestinian people and the hopes of the creation of a Palestinian state? They no longer have a leader or legitimate government. Who's going to step up? Revolutionary Communist Party? Islamic Jihad? PLF? Groups which are many times worse than Arafat’s. And contrary to popular belief, these fundamentalist groups are in opposition to Arafat pursuing any peace agreements. They do not under any circumstance want peace. Even if Israel gave up the settlements and moved out all military restrictions, there still would be suicide bombings. And how Arafat would deal with these groups is a whole other discussion. But the reality is if Arafat is no longer their to show some hope for Palestinian people, the fundamentalists will not hesitate to jump at the helm and enrage the Palestinian people more than they are now. Arafat is a major player in the peace process, even if he is a “weasel”. Once Sharon admits the fact his past and his actions are no different from Arafat's, than maybe then they will both finally be able to sit down and discuss where they both went wrong.
Bobby Latmer
Manhattan
NY/USA - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 4:06 am
a post script to my last comment.In a world like ours, and on a smaller scale this debate, where such a suject awakens passion and partiality, if we don't try to be as objective as we can we have are not credible. I am neither jew nor arab so perhaps it's easier for me but my only motivations are humanist.
cristine Dardel
switzerland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 4:12 am
I agree. Arafat is OK, as long as one recognizes that he is the least of all possible evils. But will the future of Palestine be the future of the least possible evils? The Kahan report has been mentioned a number of times as evidence against Sharon. Now we learn that the report could not find proof. This is bizarre, because at least one person has consistently asked for proof against Arafat. I do not know what the Israeli government spokespersons are on about when they claim they have discovered proof against Arafat. Maybe that they have found proof? (And no I didn't hear that from CNN.) And to throw the argument around, it does not matter what kind of opinion the people have of Sharon, if that argument doesn't do the job for Arafat. By the way, I used the "multitude of sins" only as a figure of speech, obviously I could have said something worse.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 5:29 am
You are right Jari to say it is bizarre but then perhaps not. The kahan report which I said could not OR WOULD NOT find proof is like any other internal report;it's authors can be sujected to pressure,and as for impartiality???? But to get back to another aspect of things i personally find it very hard to distinguish , on moral or human grounds, the difference between the violence of the suicide bombers(they have no tanks, no missiles and no financial backing from the states to buy them) and the violence (more sly and less spectacular) of deliberate calculated destruction, slow annihilation and strangling of a people;a deliberate insidious strategie of invasion of their territory with settlers, with the ultimate goal of exiling them. THESE ARE SIMPLY DIFFERENT FORMS OF EXTEME VIOLENCE I DON'T BELIEVE ONE IS MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN THE OTHER. I CANNOT CONDONE EITHER.
cristine dardel
Switzerland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 7:34 am
To Krishna Madan letter from April 11 letter I must say that your stating that "We cannot expect the Palestinains to accept being the only people in the world who cannot return to their homes merely because of their ethnicty" is so misleading that is sounds almost unbelievable. Please ask the Chech or the Pole government if the German population that was deported fron their counteries right after WW2 can go back to their homes. Ask the same of the Indian and Pakistany government about the 1947 refugees. And this is just very fea examples from a very long list. The fact is that from tens of millions of post WW2 refugees in the world, the Palestitnians are the only group who stayed as refugees in camps and did not find new homes in other countries. They are the only group whose leaders are dealing and trading in their suffering.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 9:22 am
Just a small remark following Jari Nousiainen assertion that "The Americans chose George W. Bush, because everybody could feel superior to him". It was not so long ago so we can remember the "Americans" did not choose Mr. Bush. Most of them either voted against him or did not bother to vote. Mr. Bush came to be president through some combination of the pecularities of the American election system and the personal constitution of the USA's supreme court.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 9:59 am
Again just a small remark for Grace Gomez-youssef assertion on April 14 that "Palestine" existed before Israel. The logical mistake you are making is by identifying "Palestine" which was a technical term describing a certain piece of land under British mandate (and a remote province of the Ottoman Empire before that, and already reinvented by the Romans for the same purpose in the 1st Century A.D.) with the notion of a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people, something which has never existed formally. By the same token; we can say of course that "Israel" has existed long before Palestine, because we know that a kingdom of that name existed in parts of the geographical "Palestine" in byblical times. This kind of argumentation does not "hold any water" either legally or morally. Most so called "Palestinians" would not call themselves by that name in 1948 and their national identity was mainly crystalized sometime between 1948 and 1973. Don't get me wrong, I am one Israeli of many who think the Palestinians are entitled to their own state and that the settlements should be evacuated precisely for achieving this goal, but this is based on much more general principles together with a realistic appreciation of the situation at hand. Non existing legal arguments as yours in this case does not help the matter.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 12:58 pm
Cristine, I think you raised a series of very good points, although I have to take the opposite view. The lack of proof in the Kahan report is or should be a serious problem. First, you accept the burden of proving an allegation (Sabra). Then, inside that burden, you place yourself, as it were, under a double onus of proof. You have to prove the alleged massacre, and secondly you have to prove that the report that should have proved the massacred did not do so, because it was manipulated for some reason or another. Unless and until you prove both of these things, your allegations amount to saying that the lack of proof PROVES your allegations. It is tempting to say that Sharon (or any other "thug") ordered a massacre and then disposed of the evidence (which only corroborates the devilishness of the plan), but I seriously doubt whether that kind of reasoning is acceptable. I have to be cautious, of course, because this is not the only time the problem has arisen. High-tech technology has been used to prove that corpses that could NOT be found could somehow be accounted for. It is commonplace to be driven to moral panic because of inflated body counts. It is not clear what happened in Jenin, but I take up the subject, before the point is missed. The Palestinians claimed that hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in that city. The figure that I heared yesterday was 87, most of them soldiers. We have to wait later findings, but I would just like to raise the issue (I may come to regret it, but that is not the point). As to the second set of points that you raised, you have to be careful to distinguish, hard as it is, the motivation behind the violence. The intifada began before the incursions. Inside this basic setting, it gets convoluted. Let us distinguish the basic objectives. The Israelis try to eliminate or catch the wanted individuals and avoid any civilian casualties. This is their claim, and I have no reason to doubt it. The personal history of Sharon is, technically, irrelevant. The "suicide bombings", on the contrary, take the civilian population as their prime target. The purpose is to spread terror in the civilian population, which has traditionally been the basic element of terrorism. The Israeli incursions intend to stop the suicide bombings in the most direct manner possible, albeit by destroying the infrastructure, whereas the suicide bombings target the group that is conceivably the most remote to the incursions, the civilians. I would OK the Palestinian gun fire against the Israeli soldiers as legitimate self-defence, but the "suicide bombings" (or whatever the politically correct term is) never. Legitimate self-defence would place the concomitant use of force under humanitarian law, and the intentional targeting of civilian population is a flagrant violation. Civilians die on both sides, but with the Israeli intention to avoid them in mind, the blame shifts automatically to the use of "human shields" on the Palestinian side. Nothing illustrates this better than the siege of the Church of the Nativity. Why would the Israelis hurt the church, were it not for the 200 Palestinian fighters inside? As for the strangling of Palestine, I think Moshe gave valid testimony that remaining in the West Bank and the creation of the Palestinian state is not what this conflict is all about. Finally I would like to reply to Moshe. It is good that you caught me on my comments on Bush junior. What is worth remembering that the Palestinian conflict should be the top priority. The U.S. administration is mishandling the case, in as far as the Palestinians are regarded as the last obstacle on their way to Iraq. It would be highly advisable for them to keep these two issues distinctly apart.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 1:23 pm
With regards to the posting by Grace, 10:26 pm 4/15/2002:
It's interesting that the comments choose to change the subject by attacking the style in which an argument is made rather than the truth of the conclusions. It's true that whether or not a previous posting "cite(s) any books" or "give(s) any links" ought to impact one's willingness to accept the conclusions drawn in the previous posting; however, these omissions and citation failures do not affect the truth or falsity of those conclusions.
Further, the comments are "ad hominem" attacks that dismiss previous arguments as mere "ranting" (a not-so-subtle attempt to discredit the argument by discrediting the state of mind of the author).
The "ad hominem" attacks are carried even further by trying to dismiss a previous argument as the rantings of some kind of bigot by trying to draw some connection between the previous author's comments and some completely unrelated ethnic generalizations contained in some unassociated discussion authored by an irrelevant third author ("like the rants of DC who thought the Kurds and African Americans ... ").
Changing the subject by focusing on style over substance and attacking the person rather than the argument ignores the points made. Suicide/homicide bombings of unarmed non-combatants violates the concepts of discrimination and proportionality central to the just and fair conduct of a war. And when either or both sides fail to renounce and end this conduct, it can be read as a signal that there is no intention to coexist peacefully following the end of the conflict. That signal can be an impossibly high barrier to the peace process.
Tom Stock
Arizona/USA - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 6:35 pm
Tom, I did not attack Brian as a person. If you were reading my comment to you and Jari with objectivity and without trying to find a way to make me look like I commited a logical fallacy, you could see that I was clearly stating that Brian made claims without evidence; in other words he came up with conclusions without presenting his premises. I don't know Brian's stance, he had never posted on this site before so I think I can justifiable dismiss his comments as rants. And where did I discredit Brian's state of mind? In fact, I even laid out the possibility that Brain and I may share the same views, IF I KNEW WHAT THEY WERE--but like I said, he didn't present them in detail, so I'll never know. As for my reference to DC (aka "the bigot"), the only commonality they share [to me] is their significance; I never implied that Brian and DC held the same principles--how would I know? Neither were very detailed in their postings. Now if you think that I think that Brian could be a bigot, you are reading too much into my writing. My unreported conclusion to the similarity between the two is that their rantings are as serious as a hang-nail. As for your last paragraph, realize that I was not even addressing your analysis of suicide bombers v. homicide bombings as evident in my first sentence which was, "To Tom Stock and (my buddy) Jari. Brian Taylor was RANTING; he made claims without backing them up." My comment to you [and Jari] were only to point out that Brian was ranting. If you wish to use the term "homicide" over "suicide" I would not argue since it seems that you have sound reasons for it.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Tuesday April 16, 2002 at 8:54 pm
To Moshe Achmon, I made no logical mistake. I was fully aware of the type of Palestine that existed pre-1947 as evident in my statement, "One may ignore the existance of Palestine as a British-ruled territory and accept that 3 separate states were created in 1947 but NEVER, NEVER claim that Palestine didn't exist before Israel." (Sunday April 14, 2002 at 1:40 pm) The focus should be at the latter part of that statement where I explained that 3 separate states--an Arab & Jewish State & a Jeruselem State--were created simultaneously; a Jewish State did NOT exist before an Arab State and vice versa. As presented in UN Res 181, that land was divided among the Arabs and the Jews where the West Bank and Gaza were CLEARLY set up for the Arabs (as laid out in the map found in the website I included). Furthermore, this part of my argument was just a premise that lead to the conclusion that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are on Arab/Palestinian land thereby making them illegal. The Jewish settlements are not on Israeli land and they are not on land that was up-for-grabs/for-sale. They aren't even legal in the sense that they were obtained via military conflict and I explained why when I brought up the Geneva Convention, Article 49. So, I don't know what you mean when you claim that I made non-existent legal arguments. My argument(s) are founded on international treaties that are very real, not figments of my imagination.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 2:20 am
To Grace Gomez-youssef letter of April 16, maintaining "that 3 separate states--an Arab & Jewish State & a Jeruselem State--were created simultaneously" just because the resolution called for them to be created is a far reaching conclusion which seems hardly to be justified. It would assume that states can be "created" overnight just by decree. The facts on the ground, of course, were very different. Only one state was really "created" out of resolution 181 and this is the Jewish state called Israel. The Other side did not get a state mainly because it rejected the resolution completely and started a war of agression to which another 5 Arab stated later joined. The territories in question (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) were occupied by two of these Arab states (TransJordan and Egypt) from 1948 to 1967 and were lost when these states embarked on another acts of agression which was desighned to eliminate Israel completely. The results of WW2, where the eastern border of Germany was moved some 200 km westward and all the German population was deported beyond these borders show us that the "world" at large is ready to forgo the sanctity of former international borders when another "higher" principle is involved. In this case I think that you can define it as a principle that nations who commits acts of agression can be "punished" for their actions and that this punishment can be of a teritorial nature. The human suffering of the population involved was probably no less than that of the Palestinians at the beginning. This principle can be applied in theory in Palestine, where if you study carefully the history you will find that the Arab side has always been the agressor. Indeed it is an interesting point to ask about the legal validity of such resolutions as UN resolution 181 when history already had its say about the matter. As I told you before I want to see a Palestinian state established side by side with Israel, but I don't think you stand on a legally firm ground when you maintain that the Israeli settlements in areas occupied after 1967 are illegal.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 5:56 am
There have already been reports from the Palestinians that the Israelis are removing bodies from Jenin who knows where. See? It will be easy to explain why the body count will turn out to be considerably lower than originally claimed. Anyway, the Israelis are acting on the authorization of the Supreme Court of Israel, whose decisions Israel Gilead has reviewed in a positive light on this same site. I have mentioned the possibility of a Palestinian peace movement a couple of times. I thought no-one would be so crazy as to call the suicide bombings a peace movement, although some statements on suicide bombings could have done honour to any peace movement. Today I read a report on a Saudi statement, which denied that suicide bombings are terrorism and that the Israeli incursions are an affront to all peace-lovers around the world. Sounds pretty much like claiming that suicide bombings are a peace movement. And there were the usual threats of increasing anti-American "hatred" and other anti-rational arguments. By the way, it is not correct that the suicide bombings get no outside financial help. The same report mentioned a multi-million dollar fund, whose purporse was "not" to assist the suicide bombers. Anyway, the families of the suicide bombers have been claimed to get financial assistance from Qatar.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 12:42 pm
To Moshe Achmon, I think you better check your history books again because between 1947 and 1967 the Arab "occupation" (as you refer to it) is in NO WAY the same as the Israeli occupation of the same territories. The Arabs did NOT build settlements and transport their own citizens in the West Bank and Gaza like the Jews did after 1967; the Arabs interfered with the administaration of those territories, which would pass the conditions of the Geneva Convention had it existed at the time. As I stated before, Israel has/is violating Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. And I have to disagree with your claim that the Arabs were always the aggressors, what about the war of 1956 and 1967? And I'm sure alot of people will have to point to the current crisis as another example. So please stop painting Israel out to be blameless. NOBODY is innocent in this conflict and until you admit that and accept it, you may find yourself not in total support of peace. Because, if you are of the mindset that Israel was/is a victim, you will not be completely satisfied with any compromise that will bring peace in the region. Furthermore, (I know this is gonna piss you off but it must be stated) we should now focus on the future and stop looking at history to assess which side is more to blame. The fact is, the Arab nations have passed/accepted the Saudi peace vision a few weeks ago. Meaning, ALL the Arab nations will exchange normal relations with Israel if the pre-1967 borders are recognized. Do you realize that, bottomline, Israel is the only one who has not accepted this as a move towards peace? Even the Bush Administration supports the plan. Let's look to the future.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 2:04 pm
Getting back to the discussion on how/why Bush was elected. As a good citizen I followed the presidential debate closely, watched the political analysts and took note of the public's reactions. I have to say that there is some level of truth in Jari's claim that Bush was elected so Americans can feel superior to him. This is true (in part) because if you look at the demographics, Gore won votes in most of the big cities (LA, Chicago, NY) where, one may argue, the more intelligent people live. Bush won in the small rural towns where, one could argue, the ordinary man/woman lives. Meaning, the small town voters wanted a president they can feel equal to (not necessarily feel superior to). If you followed the public's response to the debates, you'd hear that Bush won them, which I, personally, disagreed with but I also admit that Bush did not come off as an intellectual snob as many argued Gore to be. Bush spoke at the same level as the ordinary small town "folks." While Gore expressed an arrogance that many Americans found distasteful. The lesson learned is that a candidate [running for any office] must relate to every level of society, he/she cannot act like he/she knows what's best for the country. Afterall, he is supposed to be elected by the people so he must address the people's needs. In fact, even before the courts got involved in the Florida debacle, the whole country had already accepted Bush as the President and viewed Gore as a sore loser as he pursued legal remedies. FYI, I voted my conscience (as Ralph Nadar requested) and voted Green.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 5:52 pm
To Grace Gomez-youssef letter of 17 April 12:42. With all respects, I think it is you who should really check yor history books. The Hashemite Kingdom occupation of the West Bank between 1948 and 1967 went even further than Israel ever did and annexed this teritory to itself, even to the point of changing its name from TransJordan to Jordan to simbolize the fact that it controls both sides of the Jordan River. They enforced Jordanian citizenship on the local population and facilitated completely free movement and settlement of their indigenuous Bedouin population into the annexed teritory. As for your assertion about the 1956 and the 1967 wars, if you check history more closely you will find that both came as a result of very agressive actions by neighbouring Arab states towards Israel. The 1956 operation came after about 3 years of classical terror attacks on Israeli civilian population (I should know, some of these were performed very close to where I lived at the time) and limited retaliatory actions taken by the IDF that failed to stop the terrorists. The 1967 war broke out after Nasser closed the straights of Tiran and after 2 weeks of Israeli and international intense diplomacy that failed to revert the situation. The Konquering of the West Bank by Israel came after King Hussain joined this war and attacked Israel on a second front, despite being warned by Israel not to do so. Again in response to your I was not trying in any way to paint Israel as always blameless in this conflict, and as I told you before, I am strongly opposing the policy of our present government, but I think that an objective examination of the historical facts would show you that the blame cannot be devided equally as well, and that the main hurdle to the peace process stems from Arab refusal to admit that. Just for example, you mentioned the Saudi plan, but did you know that this (i.e. returning all the konquered teritory in exchange of full peace)was exacltly the offer which was put on the table by the Israeli government right after the 1967 war? The Arab response was in the Hartoum Convention which stated in 1968 "No Peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel and no negotiation with Israel". History shows us there is and should be a price for this kind of shortsightedness. In another part of your response you asked that I shall not look on Israel as a victim. You can rest assured that I never did that. I think the Palestinians are the real victims of this conflict. But you should not fall into the common falacy of equating the "Victim" (usually the weak side side in any conflict) with the "Just". Accepting this argument would make either Sadam Hussain in the Gulf War, or Hitler in WW2, the "just" side, because their nations were eventually the defeated side and therefore the "victims". The Palestinians are mainly their own, or more precisely, their own leadership victims. Moving to another of your assertions, you should know that even Sharon declared openly that he sees a positive side to the Saudi plan as a step forward, but as the Arab summit in Beirut changed it fundamentally by reinserting the "right of return" as part of the plan, any sane Israeli cannot accept it as even a starting point of a meaningfull negotiation. And last, I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should look to the future and to a future of peace at that.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 6:41 pm
Obviously the past IS interfering with your outlook of the future. If you truly are looking into the future would you even care to detail the past which is interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence you're Standing on? Does it really help to correct my perspective on how I see history because you're not going to succeed. Like it or not everyone will not agree on your interpretation of history therefore there was really no need to dig it up unless you were trying to point the finger at someone. And as for your assertion that the Saudi plan was nothing new, what's the point? Don't bring up things that are irrelevant. I know that the Saudi vision is nothing new and who gives a damn who came up with it first? Is it a game then? So you claim the Jews offers the plan, the Arabs reject it then the Arabs presents the plan, then now its Israel's turn to reject it? Are you trying to gain some brownie points by claiming that the Jews came up with it first? Sharon declaring that there is a positive to the Saudi plan means what exactly? That could just mean that he sees the normal relations with Arab nations as the positive not necessarily the Jewish settlements issue. Sure, what Israeli wouldn't see that as a positive? Will Sharon stop the settlements and eventually remove them? He can't even stop his current military activities, do you think we, outside observers, could really trust him to stop the settlements and give back the West Bank and Gaza? Israel has had over 30yrs to to stop the settlements and leave the territories, when is it going to happen? As for the "right of return" issue, what do you mean by claiming that "any sane Israeli cannot accept it"--what does it mean to you, probably a sane Israeli? To me, as an observer, I don't understand the argument that if this "right of return" is met, Israel would cease to exists. I mean, once the State of Palestine has been secured and Israel is intact, what's the big deal having non-Jews on Israeli territory? Really, what is the big deal? And in case you counter with the Jewish settlemens in West Bank and Gaza as the same thing, I'll have to remind you that the Jewish settlements are a very unique type of situation.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Wednesday April 17, 2002 at 10:20 pm
Jari, I advise you to go to btselem.org if you haven't done so already and read the daily updates. These reports are written by field workers whose only biased views are against the suffering of others. These are people who are there in the midst of it all. They aren't in their homes like many of us watching CNN, breaking out history and international law books in order to create a sound argument. If you decide to read any of the reports, than can you please explain to me, do you find anything wrong with what you have read? You argue that suicide bombings are an illegitimate method of warfare. So, after reading a few reports from people who can directly observe what is PRESENTLY taking place in the occupied territories, can you genuinely say the IDF is performing what they like to call, a "legitimate war against terrorism"? Or is this really, terrorists against terrorism?
Bobby Latmer
NY/USA - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 2:22 am
The article I was referring to was in the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59843-2002Apr16.html. I find it interesting that this report comes as Colin Powell is ending his visit. At the same time, al-Qaeda releases new footage, admitting their "guilt" (?) in the September 11 attacks. Again, I am not an expert, but the statement seems too outrageous for anyone to make (suicide bombing = peace), so I would suspect that it is in "encoded" language. As everybody knows, Islam means "peace", so I guess the "peace-lovers" are Muslims. The opposite of "dar al-islam", the land of peace, is "dar al-harb", the land of war, so this would justify the double morality as to the legitimacy of the use of force. Maybe this would answer Bobby's comment to some extent: the West would not be the (only) one using inverted logic. I don't know. I will check the link you gave me anyway.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 2:33 am
Another useful link is www.memri.org. Check this one out: http://www.memri.org/news.html#1019000308
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 5:47 pm
To Grace Gomez-youssef remarks of April 17th. I find it really refreshing that you lecture me about not raising the past, when just a letter before that you sent me "to check my history books". As this is a forum dealing with legal issues I ask you if any judge can past a judgement in any case without examining the evidence, something which necessitates at least relating to the past. And of course I tried to prove you wrong... this is the essence of any legalistic or many other kinds of discussion, Isn't it? But why should you call it "pointing a finger"? And of course I am also trying to win some points in this argument we are having, so maybe I can convince you or some other 3rd party who reads this (I also doubt that, because it is becoming boring,and it will therefore be my last letter unless I am more strongly provoked. You will most probably have the right to say the last word, just like my dear wife) that I am right. Again, isn't it what it's all about in a court or anywhere else people are arguing their point, so why should you try to ridicule it by remarks like "brownie points"? More importantly than this petty clashes, I find your stand on the issue of the "right of return" more disturbing, as they suggest a deep misunderstanding of the world we live in. It may come as a surprise to you, but most of the world countries are still built on the principle of a "nation state" wherein the majority of the population in a certain territory are a defined group which considers itself as a "nation" and maintains that the country in question "belongs" to it. We bloody Jews also want this to be the case with us, especially after learning from quite recent history (Oh, history again...) what can happen to us or to other nations like the Armenians or the Gypsies who are deprived from this priviledge. Therefore it is something of a concern for us to keep Israel a state with a Jewish majority and that's why I said that no sane Israeli can accept this "right of return". By the way, this is exactly the basis of my deep belief that the Palestinians are also entitled to a state of their own, and that we should move from certain territories to give them some place. You should also produce some justification for your claim that the Jewish settlements are so unique? You live in a country which was built through settling on other people's land, yet I don't suggest you run outside of your house and give it to the first native American you find in the street (but maybe I don't do that because I am afraid you will reprimand me again for calling history into our discussion). Moreover, I would really like to know on what ground you justify a situation where 1.2 Million Arabs can live in Israel as citizens, but no Jew is allowed to live in Palestine? Or maybe I did not read you right on that point?
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 9:17 pm
Obviously the past IS interfering with your outlook of the future. If you truly are looking into the future would you even care to detail the past which is interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence you're Standing on? Does it really help to correct my perspective on how I see history because you're not going to succeed. Like it or not everyone will not agree on your interpretation of history therefore there was really no need to dig it up unless you were trying to point the finger at someone. And as for your assertion that the Saudi plan was nothing new, what's the point? Don't bring up things that are irrelevant. I know that the Saudi vision is nothing new and who gives a damn who came up with it first? Is it a game then? So you claim the Jews offers the plan, the Arabs reject it then the Arabs presents the plan, then now its Israel's turn to reject it? Are you trying to gain some brownie points by claiming that the Jews came up with it first? Sharon declaring that there is a positive to the Saudi plan means what exactly? That could just mean that he sees the normal relations with Arab nations as the positive not necessarily the Jewish settlements issue. Sure, what Israeli wouldn't see that as a positive? Will Sharon stop the settlements and eventually remove them? He can't even stop his current military activities, do you think we, outside observers, could really trust him to stop the settlements and give back the West Bank and Gaza? Israel has had over 30yrs to to stop the settlements and leave the territories, when is it going to happen? As for the "right of return" issue, what do you mean by claiming that "any sane Israeli cannot accept it"--what does it mean to you, probably a sane Israeli? To me, as an observer, I don't understand the argument that if this "right of return" is met, Israel would cease to exists. I mean, once the State of Palestine has been secured and Israel is intact, what's the big deal having non-Jews on Israeli territory? Really, what is the big deal? And in case you counter with the Jewish settlemens in West Bank and Gaza as the same thing, I'll have to remind you that the Jewish settlements are a very unique type of situation.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 9:25 pm
Moshe, I'd like to ask you a question in regards to your last statement. Do the 1.2 Millions arabs which you speak of who live in Israel have the same rights as an jewish-Israeli citizen. Have you heard of any accusations of human rights violations of arabs in Israel from humanitarian organizations?
Bobby L
NY/USA - Thursday April 18, 2002 at 11:00 pm
To Moshe, I have nothing against history--as a reference guide but unless this history is still applicable to the issues of today, I think that we look at history as just that, HISTORY. To bring up TransJordan [that occured during 1948 and 1967] is a distraction and takes focus away from the real issue which is the Occupied Territories. TransJordan has no bearing on what's going on NOW, does it? Additionally, the government of TransJordan did not violate the Geneva Convention, Article 49-- those rules of war weren't even created until 1967. I didn't want to get into history/facts that is no longer applicable, YOU brought it up when you claimed that the Arabs also occupied the land in question. That is why I asked you to look at your history books again but it still has no bearing on what's going on now. As I stated before in a response to Jari, history is important but it shouldn't be the focus. If we talk about [inapplicable] history, we'd get nowhere, it would never end. How could the current conflict end while both sides continue to look at history? That is why I said we should look at the future. Yes, both sides of this conflict have been victimized, again, NOBODY is innocent but let's accept that and move on. Let's discuss what is going on today, what current issues are the obstacles of a peaceful future. As for the "right of return" issue...but before I get to that let me state this because it REALLY REALLY bugs me. Why is it that you have to look to other people like the Armenians or the Americans as examples to prove YOUR arguments? It's an attempt to shift the blame. It's like you know that your argument is not sound so you need to shift the focus onto something else and the most effective way to take the pressure off YOU is to point the finger at your opponent, ME. You brought up the Native American issue as if I'm so supposed to forget about you and start questioning my own ethics. As if that distraction will make me think, "Hey Israel is not bad. We Americans did the same thing in our past." You know what? it doesn't work that way. This discussion is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in particualar (to me), it is about the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Let me remind you that when the US was formed, we had no Geneva Conventions so technically, my forefathers broke no laws. On the other hand, Israel who is a party to the Geneva Conventions, knowingly broke international laws. Getting back to the "right of return" issue, it is not a "demand to return" it is just a "right"--do you agree? How do you know that all those refugees would even want to come back? But why not give them that option? Besides, it's not like modifications could not be made. Israel could propose a cap to the number of refugees to return. I respect Israel's right to create a nation the way the govt sees fit but to use this as the one that breaks a peace deal is a bit insane, don't you think? Your people would rather continue the conflict than reach a compromise? Haven't you guys gone through enough? As for my claim that the Jewish settlements are unique, are you telling me there hasn't been human rights violations commited against the Palestinians there? I mean, aside from the fact that their very existence is a violation, Palestinians are subjected to curfews and have no rights. Their freedom to move are restricted by the checkpoints and curfews. Their right to privacy and other basic human rights are controlled by the Israeli govt and military. That is why the settlements are unique. Are you denying that these things happen? Or are you denying that these activities are NOT in violation of basic human rights of the Palestinian? And in case you bring up the self-defense excuse, one cannot justify taking away the liberties of one group for the safety of another. Sure we, Americans, do that to criminals but these criminals get their rights taken away [by our prison system] only after they have been convicted of the crime. Moreover, in the US even criminals have rights. Importantly, one is not branded a criminal until it is proven in court that he/she is one. We go even further, we provide the accused the right to legal representation and the right to privacy. Our govt and our police force need a warrant for search and seizure. And before that, a judge requires sound evidence or probable cause would have to be established before s/he will issue a warrant. In the US, the accused has the right to due process and to be judged by his peers. So you can imagine my disgust when I witness your Israeli officials on the media claiming that theirs is the only democracy in the the region. Democracy is not just having free elections. In a democracy, the people are guaranteed protection, especially from the govt. In the US, not only do its citizens enjoy rights but anyone residing within its borders are guaranteed these rights. Your govt officials claim that Israel mirrors the US democracy but I'm telling that that is a lie. DO NOT DRAG US DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Friday April 19, 2002 at 4:12 am
To get a more balanced view on the quotable quotes (=smear) concerning both Sharon and Arafat, here are some winged words from both Sharon (more than 10 years old to be sure) and Arafat (much more recent: Sharon: http://www.cair-net.org/asp/article.asp?articleid=763&articletype=1 Arafat: http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=conflict&ID=SP36102
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday April 19, 2002 at 8:45 am
To Booby L. letter of April 18. This is one question I can answer for sure. The Israeli Aeabs are enjoing full and equal rights as Israeli citizens and under Israeli law. All accusations you hear about to the contrary are completely without any base whatsoever. It is true that their socio-economic status is on the average lower than that of the average of the Jewish population, but as somone who has been to the US a number of times I would say that the gap is smaller than the gap between the WASPS and the Afro-American or the Hispanic minorities in the US. I could enlarge on that, but I think this should be enough for the moment.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday April 19, 2002 at 11:05 am
To Moshe, I have nothing against history--as a reference guide but unless this history is still applicable to the issues of today, I think that we look at history as just that, HISTORY. To bring up TransJordan [that occured during 1948 and 1967] is a distraction and takes focus away from the real issue which is the Occupied Territories. TransJordan has no bearing on what's going on NOW, does it? Additionally, the government of TransJordan did not violate the Geneva Convention, Article 49-- those rules of war weren't even created until 1967. I didn't want to get into history/facts that is no longer applicable, YOU brought it up when you claimed that the Arabs also occupied the land in question. That is why I asked you to look at your history books again but it still has no bearing on what's going on now. As I stated before in a response to Jari, history is important but it shouldn't be the focus. If we talk about [inapplicable] history, we'd get nowhere, it would never end. How could the current conflict end while both sides continue to look at history? That is why I said we should look at the future. Yes, both sides of this conflict have been victimized, again, NOBODY is innocent but let's accept that and move on. Let's discuss what is going on today, what current issues are the obstacles of a peaceful future. As for the "right of return" issue...but before I get to that let me state this because it REALLY REALLY bugs me. Why is it that you have to look to other people like the Armenians or the Americans as examples to prove YOUR arguments? It's an attempt to shift the blame. It's like you know that your argument is not sound so you need to shift the focus onto something else and the most effective way to take the pressure off YOU is to point the finger at your opponent, ME. You brought up the Native American issue as if I'm so supposed to forget about you and start questioning my own ethics. As if that distraction will make me think, "Hey Israel is not bad. We Americans did the same thing in our past." You know what? it doesn't work that way. This discussion is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in particualar (to me), it is about the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Let me remind you that when the US was formed, we had no Geneva Conventions so technically, my forefathers broke no laws. On the other hand, Israel who is a party to the Geneva Conventions, knowingly broke international laws. Getting back to the "right of return" issue, it is not a "demand to return" it is just a "right"--do you agree? How do you know that all those refugees would even want to come back? But why not give them that option? Besides, it's not like modifications could not be made. Israel could propose a cap to the number of refugees to return. I respect Israel's right to create a nation the way the govt sees fit but to use this as the one that breaks a peace deal is a bit insane, don't you think? Your people would rather continue the conflict than reach a compromise? Haven't you guys gone through enough? As for my claim that the Jewish settlements are unique, are you telling me there hasn't been human rights violations commited against the Palestinians there? I mean, aside from the fact that their very existence is a violation, Palestinians are subjected to curfews and have no rights. Their freedom to move are restricted by the checkpoints and curfews. Their right to privacy and other basic human rights are controlled by the Israeli govt and military. That is why the settlements are unique. Are you denying that these things happen? Or are you denying that these activities are NOT in violation of basic human rights of the Palestinian? And in case you bring up the self-defense excuse, one cannot justify taking away the liberties of one group for the safety of another. Sure we, Americans, do that to criminals but these criminals get their rights taken away [by our prison system] only after they have been convicted of the crime. Moreover, in the US even criminals have rights. Importantly, one is not branded a criminal until it is proven in court that he/she is one. We go even further, we provide the accused the right to legal representation and the right to privacy. Our govt and our police force need a warrant for search and seizure. And before that, a judge requires sound evidence or probable cause would have to be established before s/he will issue a warrant. In the US, the accused has the right to due process and to be judged by his peers. So you can imagine my disgust when I witness your Israeli officials on the media claiming that theirs is the only democracy in the the region. Democracy is not just having free elections. In a democracy, the people are guaranteed protection, especially from the govt. In the US, not only do its citizens enjoy rights but anyone residing within its borders are guaranteed these rights. Your govt officials claim that Israel mirrors the US democracy but I'm telling that that is a lie. DO NOT DRAG US DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL.
Grace Gomez-youssef
California, USA - Saturday April 20, 2002 at 5:26 am
With Arafat's speeches of martyrdom in mind, one can hardly speak of a responsible leadership. Why can't we see Arafat as another Jim Jones or David Koresh? It seems too mild to say that the Palestinian authority has brought the suffering on itself, when they seem to relish their losses. Martyrdom is hardly the word, by the way. Martyrdom should not be understood as hurting other people as one hurts oneself. In any case, too often provocation is involved. I think the discussion on the "right of return" falls into this category. As has been pointed out, why would the Palestinians want a right of return, if a Palestinian state is what they want? The reason for a separate state would be undermined. Why should they want both? Should one dismiss the idea of the Palestinians wanting to claim the Israeli territory? I think the discussion of the "illegal" settlement on the occupied territories can be traced to this problem. If the Palestinians can show that the Israelis have used their territory illegally, they may then claim the Israeli territory. As far as the events in Jenin are concerned, the Palestinian Cabinet Minister Dr. Saeb Erekat reminded us yesterday that the town of Jenin was under the U.N. flag, which did not keep the Israelis from taking it over. Well, U.N. flag or no U.N. flag, the town was hardly what you would call a demilitarized zone. This is exactly what happened with the "safe havens" in Bosnia. His complaint of Jenin being now demoted to Area B status is equally futile, as they could not guarantee the security in the town themselves as long as it had Area A status. Dr Erekat seems to get moral support from U.N. envoy Terje Larsen, but "moral" is about all Larsen can deliver. When he keeps complaining of the "stench", one can hardly avoid thinking that he got his clothes dirty during the visit. The images are grotesque. However, if one hears the stories behind the images, who is one to believe? One can hardly blame the Israeli version of inconsistency when they claim that the houses were destroyed because the terrorists used them as storage space for explosives. Even less unlikely is the explanation that some of the corpses are still booby-trapped. Whatever the body count will turn out to be, it will probably be eclipsed by the moral panic that the wild claims have caused so far. For some reason, the images are more shocking when the destruction has been caused by individual soldiers, as in this case, than by high-altitude bombings with smart bombs even when they don't hit their targets. The level of actual destruction does not seems to correlate with the ensuing moral outrage. When one reads that "EU calls for immediate investigation into Jenin massacre", one is able to understand the Israeli caution. Even Terje Larsen was not accusing any side of a massacre (at least not publicly), so why would there have to be an investigation into a massacre nobody is accused of? The EU can hardly be regarded as an impartial investigation, as the EU has already expressed its dismay at the destruction of the Palestinian houses which were financed by the EU. How about the calls by Kofi Annan to send a multinational force to the region? Is Kofi Annan really so out of step with his own organization? Does he not know that the Security Council is bankrupt? The last shots in the Security Council are called by the U.S, and what would the Palestinians think of a multi-national force headed by the U.S? This is not the only credibility problem that the U.S. has, by the way. I already mentioned the differences between high-altitude bombings and the deployment of individual soldiers. The truth is that the U.S. and Israel cannot even agree on what terrorism (and hence the current "war on terror") is about and how terrorism should be fought. These differences go back at least as far as the Chechen war: http://www.russiajournal.ru/news/rj_news.shtml?nd=1990
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday April 20, 2002 at 10:26 am
At times I'm really ashamed to be an American. One who is so easily lied to and led by the nose. Israels indiscriminate killing and maiming of the palistinian people couldn't possibly be the cause of suiside bombers, could it? When a people have been pushed to the debth of despair with no back-up left, what do they have left to lose to try to regain a home and freedom for their families. Israel should ask itself why they are persecuted and tossed out of Country after Country through out history. Can it be Karma? or just what goes around comes around? J.D.Emerson USA...
John Emerson
Mpls.
MN. USA - Monday April 22, 2002 at 2:48 am
Is the war on terror a "just war"? Well, it depends on what you mean. As soon as the international community starts advocating the interests of an insurgent group, they become more than insurgents, they become belligerents, no matter how poor their troops are. I can understand that the poor level of the "defence forces" can be used as an excuse for attacks that wouldn't normally be condoned, but on the other hand, as soon as the insurgents become belligerents, they have to observe the international humanitarian law. The general failure to grasp this perplexes me. You can say the Palestinians are desperate, but who isn't? And can the desperation be somehow be attributed to the Israelis? At the end it may not matter one bit if the Palestinians blew Jenin up all by themselves, because they are so desperate. Already they are signs that a "massacre" is a massacre, no matter how evident it becomes that the refugee camp was booby-trapped to the extent that few people dare enter it even now that the fighting is over. Why does it always have to be the stronger and more disciplined army that has to bear the blame for anything the poorer fighters do? Justice is no justice unless it is applied equally to all. Human rights are good, but the one-sidedness with which they are applied gives them a bad name. And it thwarts the war on terror. For some reason people want to deny that there is terrorism at all. The first time Osama hit the WTC years ago, the current explanation was that the U.S. government did it to get more money. I think some hold the theory that the U.S. government is responsible for the attack of last September. When Timothy McVeigh hit in Oklahoma City, the U.S. government was responsible in some circles. And this is to say nothing of the rationalizations that it was the Russian authorities that exploded the houses in Moscow to blame the Chechens. One former head of state is in The Hague for his alleged war on terrorism. So it is no surprise that the European Union's External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten has told us that Israel has hijacked the war on terror. Does he mean that Israel started its war on terrorism after last September when the U.S. began its own war on terror? Did terrorism and the war on terrorism begin last September, so that any war that was waged before it has used the name in vain (and still uses if it is still going on)? Could I suggest that it is the U.S. and Britain that have hijacked the war on terror? Their primary objective was to eliminate Osama bin Laden or at least destroy his network? Have they succeeded? Their track record is not overly impressive. And yet they have already set their eyes on the future conquest of Iraq. Would it be a crazy idea that they catch Osama first and worry about Saddam later? Already the U.S. has snatched the former Soviet republics in the Central Asia under Nato's influence. Who is hijacking the war on terror? Strange things are happening. The U.S. is seen as the foremost ally of Israel, but now Russia is abandoning its antagonism to Israel and has shown itself to be more sympathetic to the Israeli cause than the U.S. ( http://www.russiajournal.com/weekly/article.shtml?ad=6075 ). One of the reasons is the Chechen war, which the U.S. still does not accept as a legitimate war on terror, whereas Israel does. Could it be that as long as the U.S. gets away with its high-altitude bombings, which entail no losses on the U.S. side, the war seems just? When a state sends ground troops or special forces to minimize the losses on the enemy's side and begins losing its own soldiers in the process, the ensuing moral outrage uses the losses on the opposite side as an excuse to vent their anger, when it is the fate of their own soldiers (or their ally's soldiers) that they are concerned about? Israel's losses in Jenin were almost staggering, so no matter what Chris Patten says about the Israeli targets on the West Bank, they have paid a heavy price. And Jenin was a war camp even before the Israelis entered it.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 12:59 pm
In reply to Jari's point that desperation cannot be used as an excuse for palestinian suicide/homocide attacks, I think we need some reflection and I am not sure of the answer. Premise 1) there are forms of killing that are less acceptable than others Premise 2) these include random targenting of civilians with the sole purpose of terrorising them I think that conduct of war rules are a great invention of our civilisation but I doubt they can be viewed as absolute moral laws rather as contracts between combatants. They are a sort of insurance policy that allow both sides to avoid great horrors in case of defeat. The moral dimension emerges when both parties explicitely or implicitly agree to the contract. Now given that Israel which has pledged to uphold the Geneva convention and have clearly not (destroying homes, settlements, collective punishment). Please correct me if I am wrong here. Given that the international community have not acted in a reasonable way against Israel as it did against Iraq. I think it would be hypocritical to ask the other side to follow our war conventions. Since: 1) Those terrorsits are not a party to any convention 2) We are unable to give them an assurance that says "if you follow those rules we made we will ensure that the other party will follow them"
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Tuesday April 23, 2002 at 3:01 pm
In reply to Shibl Mourad letter of April 23. With all due respect, I think that had you learned well the history of this conflict you would not have made these remarks. A careful examination would have shown you that all the military actions Israel has ever taken against its Arab neighbours were never initiated without former strong provocations of Arab violence. You would have learned that the first massacre was commited in Hebron in 1929 by the local Arabs on their peaceful Jewish neighbours. You would have learned that the disaster the Palestinians experienced in 1948 was brought unto them by their own attack on the Jewish population of the then British mandate of Palestine after they refused to accept the UN resolution calling to divide the land into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. That any later major war (1956, 1967, 1973, 1982) erupted as a result of some explicit Arab agression against Israel. It is a short letter and I shall not detail the facts, but you are invited to study it yourself. This is the main reason behind the fact that "the international community have not acted in a reasonable way against Israel as it did against Iraq" as you correctly observed. The reason being the correct distinction this international community made between the pure agression of Iraq towards Kuwait in 1991 and the much more complex case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think one cannot deny the fact that whenever an Arab leader came towards Israel with good will and faith to talk peace, he was met with total willingness, including the giving back conquered land. This was the case with Egypt in 1977, with Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and with Jordan in 1994. This is in itself a proof that the assertion you made in the closing paragraph of your letter that "We are unable to give them an assurance that says "if you follow those rules we made we will ensure that the other party will follow them"" is untrue. Israel was never the first to break any agreed upon rules, but always the responding side (admittedly, the Israelis being the stronger side in this conflict, their response was many times very painful and sometimes even disproportionate). You may reflect upon the fact that even in the last Israeli offensive, which came about after 132 Israeli scivilians were killed in terror attacks in one month and thousands injured, the number of Palestinian civilians killed in this operation is a small percent (10% or less) of the total number of Palestinians casualties. And this operation is done in circumstances where even the Americans would have preffered air raids that would surely have killed thousands of civilians (do I need to cite the examples?). The conclusion one should reach if one examines the situation objectively is that contrary to your assertion, the Palestinians can expect the Israelis to refrain from violence and show generosity towards their claims even to the point of getting their full liberation and their own independant state. The only conditions being: 1) That they will adhere strictly to not using any violent means and 2) That they will give up the childish notion that they can get everything they want. As a matter of fact, this very offer was on the table at Camp David less than 2 years ago, yet Arafat chose to reject it, throwing the whole region back into the mess it is in right now by resorting to violence as the means to achieve what he perceives as the Palestinians goals, thus learning nothing from history as he should have done long ago.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 10:38 am
Mosche your reply covers many basis most of which I agree with. I was not discussing the right and wrong of either side in this conflict, even though I have my sympathies as you might have guessed. I agree that Israel has gone to greater effort than most nations to be fair in its wars. It streatment of Palestinian Israelis is better than most arabs receive in their own states. The issue I was discussing without having a pre-conclusion is on what grounds do we say that Palestinians blowing up civilians is more evil than other forms of violence that lead to equal number of deaths. The simple answer was that there is a protocol to war that nations agree to. Here there are questions that arise is the protocol (1) a universal moral law? or (2) a utilitarian agreement that societies agree to? I beleive the answer is (2) in which case the protocol is binding if there is an implicit or explicit agreement to its effect. In which case (1) it does not bind Hamas or the kind of radical Jewish groups who beleive in greater Israel at any cost. (2) Israel is also guilty of not following those protocols (you have to agree) even if to a lesser extent but to total impunity. I am sorry if these questions sound abstract and useless to somebody living in the conflict and risking his life daily while the rest of us are philosophising. I might follow up with a post on the other issues that are more fondamental that you raised.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 12:43 pm
Regarding the resolution of the concept. I think the issues are: (1) Security of Israel
(2) Borders of Palestinian state
(3) Right of return of Palestinians
(4) Jewish settlements
1, 2 and 3 have been regularly discussed and I think there is a majority concensus for 67 like borders with Israelis losing the settlements and Palestinians losing any previous claims to ancient land, etc and arab states signing peace treaties.
The remaining question that I have not seen answered yet is the right of return.
One possible solution is money and immigration options to other countries. Each country who would like to help including Israel and the arabic states can provide one or both of the following: immigration positions and money. Each Palestinian refugee will fill a form providing his preference for a number of combinations like:
Immigration to US
Immigration to Canada
Stay in Jordan, Syria or Lebanon + 10,000$
Back to Israel
Back to Palestine + 10,000$
A system can be made where each person can provide their preferences in order. Then by a combination of lottery plus a ranking system, each person will be given a result. The only absolute condition is that he will be given a solution that he favors more than return to his hometown. For the few that are left who absolutely want to return Israel might accept to compromise. It is probably utopian but the total cost can be much less than the current human cost and the risk of instability.
Note that some states will have to be compensated for accepting teh Palestinian immigrants so that all parties are winners in the equation.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 1:58 pm
To Shibl Mourad letters of April 24. First let me thank you for a balabced and calm approach, something which I am not used to from people who sides with the Palestinians in this kind of forums. Now for the issues you raised. I am all for a solution which divides the land west of the Jordan between a Palestinian state and Israel, but once we get to the right of return and to the borders question I have to differ: First, tell me on what moral ground you base a solution where 1.2 Millions Arabs are already living within pre 1967 Israel, most of them the descendants of very recent Arab immigration into Palestine and you wish to add some more who choose this option, yet no Jews are allowed to live and settle in Palestine and be its loyal citizens? Second, are you aware of the fact that Israel absorbed a larger number of Jewish refugees from the Arab countries than the original number of Arab refugees of 1948? Most of these Jewish refugees left the Arab countries without most of their property. Of course, none of these Jewish refugees stayed in refugee camps. leaving people for 54 years in refugee camps is a unique expression of Arab willingness to trade in the suffering of their own "brothers" in order to achieve political aims. The very different fate of the Jewish refugees just make this even more prominent. Would you consider a similar arrangement for the Jewish refugees from Arab countries like the one you suggest for the Arab refugees? Third, the 1967 borders proved to be too much of a temptation for the Arab states to breach the armistice agreements they signed with Israel in 1948. This is exactly why the Security Council resolution No. 242, which both sides agreed to in principle, specifically called (in its abiding English wording) to "withdrawal from territories" and not to "withdrawal from all the territories". On this point, there shoudln't be much difference, though, as the Clinton-Barak proposal of 2000 wherein about 97% or so of the territories in question is returned, can and will more or less (I believe) serve as the solution which will be accepted in the end.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 4:11 pm
On the border issue I think they can adjusted as long as it is done in good faith out of security concern and that the Palestinians are given in return something they consider valuable.
As for refugees:
(1) What do you mean by recent arab immigration?
(2) Without going into debates about individual instances, I come from Syria and jewish Syrians have lived for centuries in Syria. They have decided life in Israel or otherwise is better (so did I since I live in Canada now) there was no expulsion or massive departures, simply immigration. So I think the argument for Jewish "refugees" is non existant (I might be wrong, please explain)
(3) The current geo/ethno/political situation makes it impractical for the palestinians to go back to their lands, this is why I am recommending a compensation program where everybody including Israel and arabic states and western nations that care or feel responsible for the state of affairs chip in. If it is designed correctly there should be only a trace of refugees going back to Israel. Note that I think having this small number is vital to establish the principle that the right of return was really there and will prevent future demagoges from saying that the whole thing was a trick.
(4) The fact that other Arabic countries have not been generous to the palestinians and have been using them to score political points does not negate the basic right of the refugees as individuals to a homeland. I think they should be told "we recognise that you have lost something, would you accept something else (money, or immigration to other destination) to forfeit your right?
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 5:19 pm
To Shibl Mourad, I think this exchange between us has reached its limits and I shall not pursue it any longer. Yet I feel I have to explain some points according to your questions. 1) Most of the Jews that left Arab countries between 1948 and 1956 did not do it as a normal immigration, but had to do it as life as Jews became unbearable for them (mainly in Iraq and Syria). Further more they were forced to leave most or all of their peoperty behind, something which is very different from "simple immigration" you were talking about, and which made them more like refugees than normal immigrants. This is documented in many books and other sources. In any case their situation was not very different from that of their Palestinian counterparts, most of whom (although of course not all of which) also left their homes by their own will, having been promissed by the Arab leadership of the time that they will return shortly and inherit the Jewish property and land after the assured victory of the invading Arab armies. Yet I would never call that "simple immigration" and I have pity for their ultimate fate. So there is some measure of reciprocality here which you may care to acknowledge or not. 2) You may not know it, but at the time renewed Jewish settlement (and you should also learn that there were always some Jewish population living there) began in 80's of the 19th century, Palestine was a very thinly populated country. A great part of the Arab population that lived there in 1948, and especially in the lower parts where most early Jewish settlement occured, immigrated there from neighbouring Syria (mainly from the Hauran area), Lebanon, Egypt and Lybia in the first decades of the 20th century. The reason being the wealth and the employment brought about by the Jewish immigration. I happen to know personally some Aran families like that, whose roots in Palestine are no longer than those of my family. This is the source of my remark about " recent Arab immigration". 3) As for what you call "the basic right of the refugees as individuals to a homeland" it is agreed, but this recognized homeland can only be in that part of the country that will ultimately be defined as the new Palestinian state. Returning to their actual homes in Israel is a right they collectively lost forever when they decided not to accept the 1947 UN resolution and instead attack their Jewish neighbours. In my opinion a necessary condition for the end of the conflict is that both sides will understand they cannot have everything they see as their "eternal right". We Israelis must give up on the right to have all the land that we see as ours because of the byblical story, and the Palestinians should give up on the right of return.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday April 24, 2002 at 7:44 pm
Thanks Moshe for the info. In particular of the 19th century demography, I will do some research on the subject.
Even though I am not aware of the details. I agree that our governments could have been sometimes opportunistic with jewish minorities, I hope that future governments will correct past mistakes. I will research that point too.
I think dropping the right of return will not be acceptable to palestinians in exchange for 67 borders. But I agree to end our discussion here :)
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Thursday April 25, 2002 at 3:19 am
Shibl has put the question whether suicide bombers are bound by any law a few times. First, there is the Israeli law. I am not aware of the details, but I believe that Israeli criminal law is applicable in the Palestinian territories. Otherwise, the Israeli talk of bringing terrorists to Israeli courts would make little sense. Even if this were not so, Israel has the right to persecute individuals who have committed a crime on Israeli territory, and insofar as the suicide bombings occure in Israel "proper", it is of little relevance how far the Israeli jurisdiction reaches in the Palestinian territory. The technical answer may be just that: technical. The legal problem with Jenin, as I have understood it, was that it was Area A, where the Palestinian Authority was responsible for security. That was something they could not guaranteed, so Israel revoked its Area A status (by what authority is another matter). But even apart from domestic law, international humanitarian law DOES bind entities that are not states. One speaks of so-called JUS COGENS, which is not based on any particular convention and hence it does not matter whether Hamas for instance has ratified this or that international convention. What jus cogens exactly means is a moot point. The prohibition of genocide, for instance, seems to recognized universally as jus cogens. Things get tricky when one states that the right of self-determination belongs to jus cogens (both Israel and Palestine can invoke that), so that does not necessarily clarify the matter. Normally in criminal law one has to have a clear provision in law before one can call a certain act a crime. However, the jus cogens does not respect this limitation, which was why the Nazis could be sentenced at Nuremberg for "crimes against humanity", which had not been stated, let alone enumerated, explicitly in any law before that.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday April 25, 2002 at 9:07 am
Thanks Jari. I am not aware of Jus Cogens. I looked it up and I will need to study it more.
It is clear that any Palestinian conducting a violent attack in israel wether suicide bomber or burning tires in the streets will be tried by israeli law.
I think I will refine the question to say what is the difference in legal treatment between:
(1) a person killing Israeli soldiers in duty in the west bank
(2) a person killing Israeli civilians in Israel
(3) a person killing Israeli civilians in the west bank
Do they all fall under Jus Cogens?
By west bank I mean areas under PA authority.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Thursday April 25, 2002 at 12:59 pm
To the best of my knowledge, jus cogens is not directly relevant to the three points you raised. The classical, and now perhaps a bit old-fashioned, doctrine makes a distinction between insurgents and belligerents, which is more relevant in this context. Insurgents are criminals and they will be tried according to national law. However, even insurgents can win and found a state of their own. Then of course they will not be tried according to the old national law. However, even before the insurgents gain the upper hand, they can have the status of belligerents. Then they have the right of self-defence and on the other hand they have to abide by the international humanitarian law. This answers your questions. It is in keeping with their right of self-defence to kill Israeli soldiers in duty (i.e. combatants) in the west bank, provided that no customs of law, i.e. humanitarian law, is breached. On the other hand, they have to abstain from intentional targeting of civilians, be they in Israel or in the West Bank. When insurgents become belligerents is uncertain. A clear case is when the two parties or even third parties recognize them as belligerents. This probably happened when Israel declared a state of war before the incursions. However, what complicates matters is whether the Palestinians are really insurgents to begin with. They have their own autonomy and self-government, which are seen as a preparation for statehood. So you see how convoluted this becomes. What complicates things even further is the fact that different ares under PA have a different status: Area A, B and C. So what would be OK for the Palestinians to do in Area A would be an insurgence in Area C. The question of jus cogens enters the picture when the three questions are seen together. A short answer is that genocide is forbidden under all circumstances and for all persons or entities, so it is jus cogens. You may want to consult the Genocide Convention http://www.yale.edu/cgp/dccam/genocide.htm . The operative part is Article II: "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". As Article I states, it is irrelevant whether it happens in time of war or in time of peace, so our classifications above become irrelevant. In the case of the Palestinian terrorist organizations, the intent to destroy a group is evident. You only have to read some of their anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist rhetoric, which has not been unknown even in this discussion. To be fair, Francis A. Boyle has tried to argue that the Genocide Convention can be turned against Israel: http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis1.html . Of course, the intention to turn the concept of genocide makes a rather immature impression, and I have to say that Mr Boyle has a less than sterling reputation. From what I have heard, his handling of the Bosnian case, to which he refers, was a flop. However, I do not intend to give the impression that I know things better than Mr Boyle, so let this stay the Middle East discussion that it is.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday April 26, 2002 at 9:56 am
Picking up on the acts of Palestinian terrorists being classified as genocide.
The genocide convention states "intent to destory". Would "destroy" include transfer of populations? In which case I think a significant segment of both parties are guilty at least of incitement of.
If "destroy" covers only the actual destruction of the group then even the most extreme Hamas position does not advocate that.
DISCLAIMER I am not saying that the position is justified, only that it is not genocide.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Friday April 26, 2002 at 10:45 am
Article II of the Genocide gives some examples of what it means by genocide: "a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transfering children of the group to another group." Note that these are only examples ("such as"). As to the destruction of the Jews, I think you should visit http://www.memri.org/news.html#1019000308 . At the end of that piece, Imam Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi says: "Oh Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters..." Please note that he was on the Palestinian Authority television. To move on, there has been some indication that al-Qaeda is now sending its agents to Palestine. http://www.israelunitycoalition.com/archive/
Jan02/PSONFI_020131_2.htm . By the way, in this interesting piece, though it isn't perhaps 100% reliable, there is an interesting alternative explanation of the Sabra and Chatillah massacre. The massacre has been brought up in this discussion in connection of Sharon's culpability, which was supposedly established in the Kahan report.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday April 27, 2002 at 5:32 pm
Israelis are not going to accept any right of return any more than New Yorkers are going to accept that the purchase of Manhatten was not legally valid & that they should get out. The only practical peace would be one on roughly the status quo ante '67 with an undertaking by other arab states that they will give full citizen rights to Palestinians within their borders. In the long term it would be in the strong economic interest of both parties for people living in the West Bank (& even moreso Gaza) to be able to work in Israel - but suicide bombers have probably destroyed this chance for a generation. This is not a truly just solution. The formation of Israel was an injustice whereby the Zionists (most Jews weren't asked) encouraged Christendom to make the Palestinians pay for the Holocaust. Sometimes perfect justice isn't an option.
Neil Craig
UK - Sunday April 28, 2002 at 12:33 am
To Neil Craig April 27. Just a small historical note. The Zionists never "encouraged Christendom to make the Palestinians pay for the Holocaust". The UN 181 resolution called for a solution of dividing the diminished (the bigger eastern part was already given to the king of TransJordan) British Palestine Mandate between two states, a Jewish state and an Arab state. A fair solution for the then Arab population of the Mandate (they did not know at the time they are "Palestinians". the notion that they are a sepaprate nation and not simply "Arabs" came at a later time) which was suggested by a Commitee of enquiery before WW2 i.e. before the Holocaust ever happened. It was the Arabs of Palestine, and later the neighbouring Arab states, who prevented this solution by immediately attaking the Jewish population (the resolution was passed on 29.11.1947 and hostilities broke out on 30.11.1947).
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday April 28, 2002 at 7:30 am
Could the houses in Jenin have been blown up by the Palestinian explosives? That is what the Israeli forces have claimed, and that is what one Palestinian combatant now says in the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly: http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/582/6inv2.htm .
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Sunday April 28, 2002 at 5:22 pm
To Jari's letter of April 28. The important point about the Jenin houses is not HOW they were destroyed, but WHY they were destroyed. Surely a small part was blown by Palestinian ecplosives, but most of them were destroyed either by Israely firing or by Israely bulldozers. The important point is that each house destruction by Israelis came about because it had Palestinians terrorists inside who kept fighting even though they were given the opportunity to surrender and save their lives.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday April 29, 2002 at 2:35 am
Of course one has to be careful what one reads, as information and misinformation overlap. One interesting point about in the article in Al-Ahrma Weekly was the story behind the ambush where 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Even if belligerents can eliminate enemy soldiers, they have to abide by the customs of war. Using the white flag, for instance, to lure enemy soldiers into an ambush has been forbidden in international law at least as far back as the 19th century. Probably the story of the ambush should be evaluated from this point of view (supposing it is not fabricated). And to come back to Neil's recent posting, you touched on an interesting subject. It is tempting to think of the Jewish migration to Palestine, and the later foundation of the Jewish state, as an artificial Zionist project that has has now proved less than viable. However, when would the Jewish population in Palestine not have been regarded as artificial by some? Abraham came from the east and settled in Palestine, the tribes of Israel came from Egypt and settled in Palestine, after the Babylonian captivity and many Jews settled in Palestine. The Jewish presence has never failed to arouse animosity. One vivid example is the construction of the second temple. The Jewish population that settled in Palestine after the Babylonian captivity is a particularly interesting theme, because of this "artificial" Jewish presence came what we now know as Christianity. I don't know whether this is stricty relevant, but at least this discussion shows how complicated it is to use history to argue against or in favour of either party.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday April 29, 2002 at 11:11 am
Jari's mention that the immigration to Israel happened a few thousand years ago and had some beneficial results is like somebody justifying slavery in the Sudan today by comparing it to the birth of the great American nation that included slavery in the equation.
We are talking here about something that happened within a generation ago and that resulted in very real human suffering still felt today.
I think it is a very important step for both parties to understand the drive behind the actions of the others.
The common denominator of the drive of the Palestinian is the sense of injustice that they had to suffer for no apparent reason where they ended up paying for the sins of the europeans.
Even those who accept the precense of Israel as a fact today find it incomprehensible for fair observers not to at least acknowledge that a historical injustice took place.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Monday April 29, 2002 at 12:17 pm
It's incredible to me that there is any discussion about Palestinian violence.... The last month has been an all-out attack with the assistance of US money by Israel. Israel will NEVER be safe as long as it is intent on stealing land and claiming it through biblical reference. The settlements MUST end and those people sent back to where they came from; most have US residency so their home is still there. And, then there is Jenin....I'm so tired of listening to Jewish liars saying there is no massacre, there is no massacre. I say, fine, prove it!!! Open it to UN personnel. Who does Israel think it is? The whole world is watching and waiting. Jenin is a fact...no matter what the Jews do to clean it up, it is a fact, a smear and a shame to the human race. Israel...get the he.. out of Arab land and you will find no security issues.
sarah belletto
san rafael
California, USA - Monday April 29, 2002 at 12:39 pm
About Sarah's comment on Jenin "no matter what the Jews do to clean it up".
There is a growing number of Jews and Israelis who are as horrified as you are by their government actions as an insult to Judaism and to the Jewish spirit. (See this commentary)
I think they will find it insulting to be grouped with the Jeninites.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Monday April 29, 2002 at 12:42 pm
I think we have dwelt long enough on the question whether a historical injustice took place or not (I am talking of the 20th century, so it is surprising we have to come back yet again). I find the comparison with the Sudan incomprehensible, but it is interesting that somehow the Palestinian problem is connected with all the injustices in the world. Earlier, one pro-Palestinian voice dismissed any comparison between the Palestinians and the treatment of the native Americans in the U.S. That voice came from America, so apparently you can switch your sympathies when it comes to finding parallels with the Palestinian plight, depending on who you are. When I talk of events than happened two to three thousand years ago, it should be obvious that I am not uttering value judgments. Those are historical facts, and you cannot change them no matter how unjust they may now seem. My statement on the link between the post-exilic Jewish community and the birth of Christianity is another historical fact, and as I clearly stated, no judgment on the conflict should be formed on the basis of what happened two thousand years ago. My intention was only to correct the popular notion that the Jews are the eternal parasites, when Judaism is in fact the source of both Christianity and Islam. I think any excuse is good enough for some people to fly into righteous anger for the Palestinian cause. It would be interesting to compare the number of Muslims that have died in Gujarat in the recent clashes with the numbers of the Palestinians killed during the incursions. At lest the level of moral outrage is quite different. There has been an enormous hubbob about the standoff at the Church of Nativity and the destruction of a statue of Virgin Mary, when in Kosovo more than a hundred religious (Christian) monuments have been destroyed during the past few years and the international community hardly utters a sigh. "Paying for the sins of the Europeans?" So now we have the vicarious sufferings of the Palestinians crammed down our throats? I can't believe I am reading this.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday April 29, 2002 at 2:49 pm
To Shibl Mourad and Sara Belletto recent letters. I don't want to get into a very long discussion of history, but there is a myth that must be dispelled and this is the myth of the "injustice" to the Palestinians made in 1948. The basic fact of 1948 is that the Jews accepted the UN resolution of 1947 that divided the country between the two peoples and the Arabs did not! Instead they chose to attack. The outcome was historical JUSTICE at its best. The agressors, which included all neighbouring Arab states and not only the local Arabs, were defeated and lost some (not all) of the land that was designated for them. Until the Palestinians grow up and admit to the part they themselves palyed in their own sad fate, they are probably doomed to more suffering. Of course there is great injustice there if youlook at the personal level, but this is not any different from the injustice done to the German population of the then Czecoslovakia who were deported in 1945, or to the tens of millions of Hindu Indians who fled the emerging Pakistan in 1947, or to the Jews of Iraq nd Syria who came to Israel between 1950 and 1952 without all their property when life in the Arab countries in state of war with Israel became unbearable for them, or in so many other instances in the tragic 20th century I shall not detail here. The real injustice towards the Arab refugees from Palestine was that, contrary to all the other examples mentioned above, their loving Arab brothers, rich from oil and with vast land reserves, left them to rot in refugee camps, and their so called leadership are still trading and dealing in their suffering to this very day. In 1967 they tried again to overturn the outcome of 1948, resorting back to violent means, and this time lost the rest of the land. Don't get me wrong, I am all for a division of the land and for a solution of "two states for two peoples", but the Palestinians should also accept it and pay the historical price for being always the first to attack. The other point you raised is Jenin. Somehow you tend to forget that it is now almost two weeks since Israeli forces withdrew from Jenin and the Palestinians regained control over the camp. During this last two weeks, there were so many journalists working there, some of them very hard, to prove there was a massacre, yet none came so far with any real evidence. And you know why? because of the simple fact there was no massacre whatsoever. OK, I see you smiling, then why don't you bastards let the UN mission in to ascertain this claim of yours? I will tell you why. Because no one who comes to play baketball will agree to play if he comes to the arena and sees a football referee appointed by the best friend of the other team. The commitee appointed by Mr. Annan is evidently a plot by Mr. Annan to tip the balance in favour of his terrorist friend Mr.Arafat. Arafat gambbled on a campaign of terror just in order to bring about an Israeli attack that will end in a real massacre that will necessitate international intervention. I admit this was a genuine plan and I also have to admit our not so clever PM (whose policy I oppose, as I have already written here a number of times) fell into this trap. The only point Arafat did not take into his calculation was that the morality of the IDF soldiers is such that there were relatively very few civilian Palestinian casualties in the recent Israeli operation (and this came after a month during which 132 Israeli civilians were killed and thousands wounded in a series of Palestinian terror attacks). So now, because there was no real massacre, the Palestinians had to invent one and Jenin, which has seen very real destruction was deemed the right place. And so Mr. Annan volunteered to supply the verdict through a commitee whose members know nothing about fighting terror, being all from a humanitarian backgroung and clearly not fit for a real fact finding mission in these circumstances. I shall cut it short here as I know it is a classic case of "your word against my word" and I probably don't stand a chance to convince either of you I am right. The only difference between us being the fact that I personally know many of the IDF soldiers (I have been one for many years) and I know they would never commit any kind of a war crime, let alone a massacre!
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday April 29, 2002 at 2:51 pm
Jari, you seem to have started an all out attack out of miscomprehension of my comments.
I will not answer all your points since I agree with most of them.
My comaprison was not between Israel and Sudan, but between your argument bringing ancient moral codes to contemprary problems. (I might have misuderstood your argument and welcome you correction)
I come to this forum to exchange opinion with intelligent persons. I particularly appreciate your contribution as it brings a lot of insight and solid knowledge of the issue.
I do not value being placed in the same boat with some person I never heard of, who holds similar sympathies but had some vague argument about an issue I never thought of.
We are not a monolith you know. Because there is no "WE". I am just an individual with an opinion.
One opinion I hold very strongly is that the major driver for the creation of Israel was the persecusion of Jews in Europe.
It seems to be an established fact that:
(1) The first wave of modern Jewish immigration (Aliyah) happened after Russian Pogroms in 1881.
(2) Dreyfus trials in France prompt Herzl to create the Zionist movement
(3) The holocaust caused massive immigration to Palestine
On these points I think the majority of Palestinians and Israelis agree, I do not see why you take offence to a simple historical fact.
Do you think that a large number of Jews would have left Europe to go to a foreign mystical land if they were treated with humanity wherever they were living for centuries?
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Monday April 29, 2002 at 11:09 pm
I am not backing down from my statements about Jenin; if there are outraged Israelis out there who agree, let them come out and speak... The fact is that Israel is lying and the world knows it. On Saturday, they asked for delay due to the Sabbath; on Sunday, it was something else. NOTHING will make it go away. I am reminded (sadly so) about our community pool; for years, the neighbors had enjoyed it and it passed from one generation of kids to another. One year, the Jewish Center leased it (because their center was being remodeled); they came, changed the rules, brought food and bees, dominated the showers, and got there before anyone else to take all of the chairs. The next summer, they returned and our community began to dwindle. When their center was finished, the broke their lease and left our pool in shambles. I remember trying very hard not to draw the analogy to Palestine but a part of me did; today, that analogy is very clear.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Tuesday April 30, 2002 at 2:33 am
I don't know who you mean when you say "WE" are not a monolith. The Arabs? The Jews? The Christians? The Muslims? The Europeans? Do you single out your "own" group from this long list for not being a monolith? If Europe was such a horrible place, why did it have such a large Jewish population in the first place? Maybe their living conditions in Palestine at the time had something to do with the fact. As has already been pointed out, part of the Israeli population (Muslim as well as Jewish) comes from the Arab countries. The Arab countries were no less hostile to the Jews (not to mention other Arabs) than the European countries, but the difference is that the Europeans are supposed to feel guilty for whatever the Middle East dictates. Remember that the houses in the refugee camps were built with European money. Maybe the Europeans have the image elsewhere of being easily manipulated by feelings of guilt, and we even have to feel guilty when our feelings of guilt are not evenly allocated. I am not exactly taking offence at whatever somebody says, I rather think the whole thing is becoming dangerously tragicomical. I have vacillated between Palestinian and Israeli sympathies but now that we have the occasion to scrutinize the Palestinian claims, the bottomline must be that the truth is in every single case probably the exact opposite. How is anyone to do business with people like that? Sure you can quibble about the details, but the bulk of the evidence is turning heavily against the Palestinians. I think everyone realizes that, so what you have is some kind of quasi-religious attribution of guilt mixed with vicarious suffering etc. Paying for "sins" may be what the Palestinians are doing, but I would like to hear at least once that even they have "sinned" and it is primarily they themselves that have to pay for their own sins. You can go on endlessly about the legal implications, but if every sound argument is side-tracked by some mysterious shifting of guilt, this conflict is going to last at least another thousand years.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday April 30, 2002 at 10:59 am
In response to Jari.
First an apology for bringing "tragicomical" language to the discussion. I agree that the words "sins" and "monolith" change the tone of the discussion.
I am not interested in one sided name calling as I can get this from a lot of other forums.
I will explain what I meant by monolith.
In your post you responded to a point I made by saying that an American Palestinian rejected comparision with the native americans. By "we are not a monolith" I was saying that please do not group my opinions with the opinions of others. I agree with you neither Jews, Europeans, Americans, Palestinians or other arabs are a "monilth" :)
As for "European guilt" (please note the quotes) I think it is a very complex issue that can fork in many directions:
(1) I do not beleive that there is such a thing as guilt, except when it comes to individuals.
(2) Still there are certain historical facts that should be known to create context and to learn lessons
(3) In this conflict history is particularly important because it plays a major role in the psychology, legitmisation and rhetoric of both sides
(4) I have a simple and sincere curiosity as to how intelligent, informed non-biased observers could see the history of the conflict as just. (by just I mean they would do it again given the chance)
For the question of the "white man burden", "European guilt" etc. Where it seems unjust to hold the western world to a higher moral code than other nations. It is simply the price of success:) Those who beleive that the western world today represents the hight of human civilisation demand high standards.
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Thursday May 02, 2002 at 2:50 am
I have lost the thread completely. It is totally irresponsible to see the Palestinian question in the colonial setting. Palestine never was a colony of any Western power. As has already been reiterated, Britain was the anticolonial power, the purpose of its mandate (given by the League of Nations) being the dismantling of the Ottoman rule. So it would be appopriate to speak of a "white man burden" and "European guilt" in another setting, but the burden that the Palestinians have been carrying is that of the Ottoman Empire. Also, there have been some unfortunate comparisons between Algeria and Palestine, of which even Ariel Sharon is guilty. Algerian struggle tallied perfectly with the decolonization movement of that time, because Algeria was a department of France. The length of the Palestinian struggle should be attributed to the Palestinians themselves (and I still have to doubt whether the term Palestinians is quite apt, Arafat himself being an Egyptian). It is as if the Palestinians were afraid of statehood. This is the impression one gets when one hears the Palestinian officials reciting the Security Council resolutions. What would happen if Palestine were a state? Why, the Security Council resolutions would bind the Palestinians! The fun part of being a liberation movement is that you have all the rights that the states have and apparently none of the responsibilities. There is little doubt that the Arab policy towards the Jewish state is genocidal. The oration of an imam talking on the Palestine Authority TV about the "annihilation of the Jews" goes to show this. Another interesting "detail of history" is the statement made in 1948 by Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" (Oh boy, fancy the Arabs talking about the Crusades in such a positive light!). It is interesting that the expression "war of extermination" is used. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which just entered into force) stipulates in Article 7 (1)(b) that "extermination" is a crime against humanity. It is as if it is a honour for the Palestinian to be guilty of war crimes. They brag about luring the Israeli soldiers into an ambush by feigning surrender (prohibited in international customary law). Saeb Erekat reprimands Israel for attacking Jenin, which was under the UN flag. See the improper use of the UN flag ICC Statute Art. 8(2)(b)(vii). When one talks accusations that Palestinian combatants use Red Crescent vehicles, one "almost" believes that. The Palestinians call the intentional targeting of civilians "martyrdom". If this has anything to do with any religion, it is at best a sign that we are back to the ages of human sacrifices. An useful guide for evaluating the Arab policy towards Israel is http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/warindep.html . (The above quotation of Azzam Pasha is from this site.) Yes, you can complain of Israeli human rights violations. I read the preliminary report of the Amnesty International on the situation in Jenin. With all the above-mentioned considerations in mind, it could have been a tirade against the Palestinians, but let's be realistic, the Palestinians are not what the Amnesty International is after.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 02, 2002 at 10:29 am
Both sides are blaming each other of violations of international laws.
What instruments does the international community have to enforce those laws.
I know that the security council can vote certain measures against offending nations as it did against Iraq. But this seems to be a political process.
Are there any pure legal instruments?
Shibl Mourad
Quebec/Canada - Thursday May 02, 2002 at 12:53 pm
Of course, it is easy to say that both sides are accusing each other. That is an easy way to creat a perpetual impasse. Sooner or later one has to substantiate one's claims, and how that is done is not strictly relevant. Besides, I doubt whether both sides are accusing each other. We hear a lot of accusations from the Palestinian side but very little from the Israeli side, who is mainly warding off any accusations from the Palestinian side. It is the multitude of the accusations from the Palestinian side that makes them less than plausible. Take for instance Jenin. The initial claim was that there was a massacre with 500 - 1500 Palestinians dead. The official Palestinian figure is now 56. Kofi Annan called the fact-finding mission off, because the figure turned out much lower than claimed (there are of course many explanations why the mission was called off): http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm . Then the Palestinian minister and Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat warns that the cancelling of the fact-finding mission will allow Israel to continue this massacres. The same man said that Jenin was under the U.N. flag, which he might have regretted when a Palestinian named "Omar" told that they had booby-trapped the camp. OK, if you are litigious enough you might try some kind of trial, but this is not the stuff trials are made of. Any process that is begun out of sheer malice without sufficient evidence will incur sanctions in itself. This is how it works in domestic law. In international law the rule of thumb is that 99 % of disputes are resolved informally. There are some principles like good-neighbourly relations which should take precedence in international relations over any formal settlement. The membership of the UN is open only to peace-loving states, and I must admit the Palestinian rhetoric falls short of this standard. Imagine what would happen if Israel would declare its intentional is to exterminate the Palestinians. The settlements in the West Bank do not amount to extermination. Rather, they offer an excuse to call into question Zionism pure and simple, the beauty of the argument being that once the settlements are presented as the most obnoxious form of Zionism, you can dismiss Zionism altogether, including the existence of the State of Israel. Well, so long as Palestine is not a state, apparently there isn't any international court, luckily, where it could take its "case". It can rely on truth commissions and such. So-called "third-country" trials have not proved viable. This is one of the advantages of being a state, but it should not be the sole reason of wanting to become a state.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday May 07, 2002 at 11:35 am
Terrorism: Who´s to define it? http://www.defencejournal.com/globe/2000/feb/terrorism.html Late Rev.Martin Luter King p.3 writes: "I have in my files a photostat of a WANTED poster issued by the British colonial authorities about 1943.It shows the mug-shots of ten men hunted as terrorists, pictures in alphabetical order; the first is that of a Polish man. His name was Menachem Begin, and his collegue, Yitzhak Shamir, also a suspected terrorist, vere to become future prime ministers of Israel. My suggestion to Mr. A. Sharon is to remmemebr that colonialism is dead, enforcing "peace and security with oppression is next to imposible, Israeli people must be familiar with oppression. At the same if Israel`s political elite could not see the need for peace, they should be made to understand concept of peace, peace without oppression. As for terrorism it is response to oppression as it was in 1943 by Jewish people.
Carla Berg
Austria - Tuesday May 07, 2002 at 1:50 pm
To Carla Berg letter of May 07. Just some minor corrections: 1. It should be remembered that Begin and Shamir (who by the way belonged to two different terrorist groups at the time) represented a minority of Jewish public opinion at the years 1943 to 1948. Most of the Jewish population and the elected leadership of the Zionist movement, rejected both their ideology and their methods. 2. Again as a side note, today they would hardly be regarded as "serious" terrorists. After all they never targeted civilian British population and they never sent 16 year old kids to blow themselves up. 3. Saying that "Israel`s political elite could not see the need for peace" is very misleading. There was not a moment in the 54 years that Israel has existed as a state, in which her leaders did not call for peace. Of course, there were and will be arguments about the terms of such peace, but the fact remains that it was usually the Arab side who rejected those peace offers, the last of which was the far reaching offer made by Barak to Arafat less than two years ago that was so mistakenly rejected. In that connection it is interesting to note that just this week, during an American TV broadcast from Jerusalem, Saheb Erekat said "Had I been given the Barak offer now, I would have taken it". So far for missed opportunities.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday May 08, 2002 at 3:07 am
So in one of your statements, what you're basically implying is that since these groups did not get the approval of the majority of the Jewish population and governemnt, they werent effective at achieving their goals. So what if they killed and drove out the natives from their villages. It's not important. Because the majority of the Jewish people were against them. But they did in a small way help get rid of the many of the natives. So dont try down playing their acts by saying that they just werent popular. Terrorism is terrorism. No matter how it is carried out and no matter how many people approve.
Bobby L
USA - Wednesday May 08, 2002 at 6:22 am
So now terrorism is terrorism. And no-one would deny that terrorism is a response to oppression. However, it is not "the" response, and whatever it is a response to doesn't make it right. Just trying to argue that the Jews have engaged in terrorism doesn't exonerate the Palestinians in any way. Both of them have been given the same opportunities, both of them have engaged in acts of terrorism, but only the Jews have grown out of it and used the legal means available, notably the establishment of the Jewish state. Terrorism has been regarded as a more or less legitimate means of achieving self-determination, so why relish the fact that even the Jews have indulged in it. However, terrorism should be a means to an end, and not an end in itself. It is wrong to call on Sharon to quit colonialism, because colonialism is the backbone of the Palestinian "struggle", no matter how ineptly that term has been applied to their situation. And conversely, oppression is a response to terrorism. I don't say it is "the" response or even that it has occurred in this case. But I do think the oppression has been largely self-inflicted, so that the world opinion can be manipulated against Israel.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday May 08, 2002 at 1:00 pm
To Bobby L Letter of May 8th. Although I agree in principle that terrorism is terrorism just as you said, and should be rejected by all decent people, I think you should know more about the history involved. Just shortly, the terrorist groups which Begin and Shamir were leaders of, had only a minor role in the 1948 war. They did not "killed and drove out the natives" as you wrote. The "Lechi" group to which Shamir belonged was hardly involved at all because it was too small. The somewhat larger "Etzel" group of Begin was only involved in one case of ilegitimate killing of Arab civilians, the infamous Deir Yassin case. And even in this case what happens was that they blew up the village houses on their inhabitants, because they were thinking they were empty. It still was a horrible act which has no justification, but your description of history is very far from being objective. You may wish to learn a thing or two about the Arab's acts of terror performed in tthe 1948 war, way before the Deir Yassin case, such as the car bomb that killed more than 50 civilians in Jerusalem at February 1948, and many other documented cases. Your selection of the word "natives" is very misleading. A majority of the Jews that fought the 1948 war were no less "natives" of Palestine than their Arab counterparts. It is the constant effort to describe this conflict as some kind of struggle between "natives" and a foreign colonial force that is so wrong. Jews has been living in this country continuously for at least 3000 years, and the modern immigration of other Jews into Palestine that started already in 1882 was in many cases followed by a paralel immigrtion of Arabs from neighbouring countries, which was caused by the prosperity and employment brought about by the Jewish immigration. The just solution of the conflict involved the division of the land between the two nations ever since 1947, but you should remember that it was always the Arabs who everytime rejected the offers made to them about this division, just to find themselves in a worse situation the next time.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday May 08, 2002 at 5:21 pm
Moshe you mentioned on several occations that "A majority of the Jews that fought the 1948 war were no less "natives" of Palestine than their Arab counterparts" and "a paralel immigrtion of Arabs from neighbouring countries". Do you have an estimate of the demographics of both Jewish and Arab (non Jewish) immigration to Palestine?
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday May 09, 2002 at 11:19 am
To Shibl Mourad question of May 08. It is estimated that the whole population of Palestine before 1882 was something between 200 to 300 thousand inhabitants, of which about 30 thousands were Jews leaving mainly in the larger towns. In other words, the country was almost empty. In 1948, about which there are better numbers, there were about 1.6-1.8 Million inhabitants, about 0.6 Millon of whom were Jews. So both populations increased dramatically in this 60-70 years span and far beyond what natural growth can account for. It is clear, of course, that most of Jewish growth came from immigration, but the numbers of Arabs immigrating into Palestine in the same period, and especially into villages and towns in the low lands where most Jewish settling activity took place, was of comparable proportions, although much less documented. Most of the (rather small) Jewish battling force of 1948 were not the immigrants themselves, but either the garndsons of the earlier immigrations, or the sons of later immigrations, so they were actually natives of the land (which somewhat explains their success in those fights).
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday May 10, 2002 at 2:27 am
Hey Jari, the Jews grew out of Terrorisism because of the U.S.' growing support for a Zionist state politically and economically. Do you think the U.S. had ever supported the "other people" who where residing there at the time? And Moshe, it seems that your sources of information are undeniably biased. Here are a few passages in Britannica in 1948, which was mostly American owned by this time.."terrorist attacks in Palestine continued, taking almost every conceivable form. Attacks on airfields and radar stations, armories and military posts, the wrecking of railway lines ... and bank holdups all bore witness to organization on a larger, dangerous and ingenious scale, and were by general admission made possible chiefly by the active or passive support which the terrorists received from the great majority of the Jewish population [in Palestine]"...."..a group of Irgun commandos raided the Arab village of Dayr Yasin [also spelled Deir Yassin] killing all 254 of its inhabitants.." So, I guess these good hearted militants didnt bother to check to see if the houses where inhabited before they blew them up.
Bobby L
USA - Friday May 10, 2002 at 3:01 am
One other thing I forgot to mention. You brought up the fact that Arab "palestinians" rejected the division offer everytime. Now let me enlighten on the major reason why they rejected it. According to the UN partition resolution, the split would be 56% for Jewish state and 44% for an Arab state. And im assuming you already know all the numbers of arabs and jews that would reside in each state. You really think that the arabs would agree to cramming 800,00 arabs in land smaller than what was designated for the jews? And in addition, the idea of 300,000 of arabs living in a jewish state was ridiculious at the time and eventually the thought was the majority will move to the arab state. That would than lead to about 1,000,000 arabs in 44% of the land and 500,000 jews plus 100,000 arabs in 60% of the land. Now do you think the representives would agree to this plan with open arms and big smiles? Not to mention their anger of the wide-scale immigrations of Jews to the land throughout several decades. Of course they will reject it everytime. Not if there was a better deal but their never was. And the U.S. backing of further jewish immigration did not help either.
Bobby L
USA - Friday May 10, 2002 at 3:27 am
We can go on with this discussion to give the "Palestinian viewpoint" some respectability, even if there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Suppose that the Jewish immigrants had not made one single mistake during their history, what would that benefit them? The point is not what they have done wrong but the need some people feel to get them out of there. Problems can be created to suit whatever needs. Terrorism is bad. Like it or not (and I don't), terrorism has been OK'ed in efforts to achieve self-determination. However, self-determination, i.e. the establishment of a state, is the only reason why terrorism can ever be condoned. To me it seems somewhat futile to go back to the history of what happened before the State of Israel was founded to decide whether that State was created in an appropriate fashion. We are not rehearsing these facts to argue that the Palestinians are justified in using terror to set up a state of their own. No, we are rehearsing these facts because some people have the need to argue that the State of Israel shouldn't exist. Who is the great bogeyman of the Palestinians at the moment? Ariel Sharon. Who was the first Israeli politician to propose to the Palestinians the creation of a Palestinian state? Ariel Sharon. The percentages in the UN partition plan more than half a century ago seems a very, very weak excuse. And so does the alleged American involvement. The former mandate-holder, Britain, supported the Arab terror. Believe me, as soon as you stop calling the existence of the state in question, we can both discuss the sanity of the ongoing military incursions. By the way, what one tends to forget when discussing what happened in 1948 is that the suicide-bombings stopped.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday May 10, 2002 at 1:22 pm
Ok according to you history is totally irrelevent to what is going on now and Ariel Sharon is a man of peace who wants nothing more than to create a Palestinian state. Fine. Now lets forget about history and look at what is going on now. According to btselem.org, an estimated 1500 palestinians have been killed in 20 month period whom nearly 1000 where civilians. On the Israeli side, nearly 500 have been killed of which 300 where civilians. First and foremost, the suicide bombings of Israeli civilians is totally wrong and I dont think is helping the Palestinians. That said and done, lets talk about the military incursion. As i have mentioned, over 1000 civilians have died and over 900 of those by IDF. So tell me, how is Israeli succedding by killing a larger percentage of civilians than militants and terrorists? I hear them talk about "collateral damage" like it's a schwarzenegger movie. Oh wait I forgot. Ihey arent targeting civilians. Bullsh*t. You mean to tell me every single one of these soldiers are saints and that some of them arent filled with "hate" and "anger" towards the palestinians? There have been many accounts by field workers and pales. of unlawful killing and shootings by the IDF. But you dont hear about the investigation of IDF soldiers. Yes Sharon is without a doubt a man of peace and wants to give them a state. One other thing. Jari and Moshe's statements are just as non-objective as mine. We all seem to manipulate facts or use manipulated facts mixed in with real truth to put more weight on our chosen sides. This unfortunately makes us tend to miss other important facts, which I have.
Bobby L
USA - Friday May 10, 2002 at 4:46 pm
To bobby L letters of May 10. I don't think the present medium is fit for a long discussion of the history of Jewish resistance to the British between 1945 and 1948, but the few sentences fron the 1948 Brittanica you cited are hardly a reliable and objective source (which is quite natural, considering the total lack of historical perspective and the fact that the writers were probably British, even if ownership was alraedy American). There is a complete mix up there between the actions of the small terrorist groups of the "Irgun" and "Lechi", and the much larger scaled operations by the Hagana, which was the military tool of the organized and official Zionist movement. The Hagana carried out attacks on radar stations, bridges and other kinds of British military infrastructure in 1947, but took a lot of pain to insure that no British soldiers or civilians get hurt in those attacks. It was only these actions, brought about by the resentment of the Jewish population over the British policy of preventing the immigration of Holocaust survivors into Palestine, that got the support of the majority of the Jewish population, and not the terrorist actions of the more militant groups. As for Dair Yasin, I already said it was a horrible deed that has tainted our just struggle from the day it was done to eternity. I just noted the fact that any objective look at the history of 1948 in Palestine would show that against this one notable attrocity by the Jewish side (which was utterly condemned by the the majority of the Jews and their elected leadership, who later risked civil war and dismantled the Irgun in the famous Altalena event), there were many attrocities performed by the Arab side, some of them preceding the Dair Yassin massacre. Moreover, the general responsibility for the 1948 war lies definitely with the Arab side who attacked the Jews the day after the UN resolution passed in 29.7.1947. This, of course, brings us to the second point you raised about the fairness of the "deal" offered to the Arabs in 1947. You seem to neglect the point that about 65% of the 56% offered to the Jews in this "deal" constitutes the southern Negev desert, in an area which cannot be cultivated. So, the division of arable land was completely different. More importantly, of course, is the point of what one does when one gets a verdict he does not like. Is he justified to attack his opponent on the spot? In my humble opinion, it's one thing to not "agree to this plan with open arms and big smiles" and another thing is to start killing your neighbour. The fact stays that the Jews did not consider this resolution as fair for them more than the Arabs did, but being practical and culturally tending to compromise, they accepted it and the Arabs did not. There is a pattern here, which unfortunately tended to repeat itself for all the years to come since then.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday May 10, 2002 at 6:48 pm
I totally agree with Mosche, that there is a pattern. The Zionist movement since its inception has taken a pragmatic, gradual approach to achieving its goals. While the Palestinian side has been less sophisticated in seizing opportunities and building on them. Even though this strategic gap can be explained by lack of sophistication of the Palestinians. I think it stems that deep down every Palestinian is still in a state of shock and anger that this disaster has fell on his head. While on the Zionist side, except for the extremely religious, there was a clear understanding that an unfortunate but necessary injustice has to be done to achieve their purposes.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday May 11, 2002 at 6:17 am
I didn't say Sharon is a man of peace. George W. Bush said that. I said that Sharon put forward the proposal on the creation of a Palestinian state. As for men of peace, what use were the men of peace when the second intifada broke out? The Israelis didn't choose Ariel Sharon because he was a man of peace. In terms of pure realpolitik, Sharon has accomplished more than all the men of peace before him put together, in bringing the Palestinian state closer to reality. But imagine the Palestinians living in a Palestinian state side by side with the State of Israel. Who is a man of peace? King Fahd of Saudi Arabia? When Israel pulled back from the West Bank, he said that Israel was only trying to curry favour with the international community. It must have been a relief for him when Israel came back. Imagine King Fahd wasting all his Saudi millions he had promised on some reconstruction project. Does defending the existence of an existing state make me biased? So be it.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday May 11, 2002 at 10:57 am
Moshe's comment about the demography of 19th century Palestine concludes "In other words, the country was almost empty."
It is a surprising conclusion, as compared to other countries at the time the population density was not particularly low.
I have done some preliminary number gathering, that I am sure is flowed due to inaccuracy of data and vhanges of boundaries. But I think it does give a framework for judgement.
US 1899 76M, density 21 per sq mile
Syria 1895 1.411M Desnity 19.5
Palestine 1895 (only Muslims and Christians and Druze) 0.553 Density 52!!!
Is there a fondamental mistake in my numbers?
Please correct.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday May 11, 2002 at 11:14 am
On another historical point raised by Moache "Most of the (rather small) Jewish battling force of 1948 were not the immigrants". The leaders of the 3 main forces Hagana, Irgun and Lechi were immigrants. It is possible that the actual fighters were actually native since they would be younger. Is there any source where we can obtain some estimates, eg the records of dead combatents?
I do not think BTW that this point is very important I am just raising it out of curiosity. What is more telling however is the dismissal of Lechi and Irgun as fringe movements with no real support while both their leaders later became prime ministers. Or is bigotry and massacre only a training ground from which emerges humane, peaceful and tolerant human beings?
Welcome Mrs Arafat and Sharon :)
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday May 11, 2002 at 1:11 pm
To Shibl Mourad letters. With all due respect, I think we are dragging this forum to historical details which are not interesting for all. If you wish, we can continue this privately. The E-mail is achmon@hotmail.com. Let's keep the posting to this forum to ideas and remarks of more general interest.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday May 11, 2002 at 1:57 pm
Jari, by saying that Sharon wants a Palestinian state implies that he is looking for peace, hence a man of peace, which he is not. He is a man of war and always will be and he will always try to use military means to get his way. And you proclaim that you are defending the existence of Israel. First of all, Israel isnt going anywhere. It's existence is not in Jeopardy, especially as long as the US is watching its back. You have this impression that real soon, a large army of suicide bombers are going waltz right past the green line and kill all the Jews and take over Tel aviv. Just because a bunch of fanatical islamic yahoos believe that Israel shouldnt exist doesnt put the state in Jeopardy. So the question of whether Israel will still exist or not is irrelavent. The question is if a Palestinian state will ever come to existence. From the looks of Sharon, it never will. I will be surprised if a Palestinian state is ever created while he is still around.
Bobby L
USA - Sunday May 12, 2002 at 6:54 am
In Arab geography, the State of Israel doesn't exist. A very important ingredient in the soup is the Saudi peace plan of March 2002. In art. 3(II) it says that the Arab states would "establish normal relations with Israel". It does not say that the State of Israel would be recognized (whereas Israel is called upon to affirm "the acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state"). It does not call the State of Israel by the name "State of Israel" but only "Israel". It says that the Arab countries would establish normal relations with Israel "in the context of this comprehensive peace". Probably the "normal relations" would have to be defined in the context of this "comprehensive peace", because I have no idea what "normal relations" means: if it means recognition, why didn't it say "recognition"? It should be obvious that this isn't some fanatic islamic yahoos blowing themselves up. The expression "comprehensive peace" indicates that the Arab world is at war with Israel. Why else should the "Arab-Israel conflict" be considered ended (Art. 3(I))? If there is no such conflict, why would the Arab states "enter into a peace agreement with Israel" (ibid.)? Why else would the Arab countries promise to "provide security for all the states of the region" (does that include Israel) (ibid.)? Prince Abdullah went to Texas and when the White House drafted some proposal, Saudi Arabia expressed its "anger" that the Saudi peace proposal wasn't mentioned? The Saudi government had already warned that the failure of Colin Powell's peace mission would feed the Arab "anger"? Is it some kind of prerogative of Arab foreign policy to express "anger"? One would do well to distrust a peace envoy who is so ready to express "anger" but in this case it would be lunacy to do otherwise. At the end of Colin Powell's visit to Palestine, Saudi Arabia promised gigantic financial injections to Palestine, and nobody really knows where that money is going (nobody except the Mossad and Ariel Sharon). These "fanatic islamic yahoos" don't come from nowhere, and they are not a fringe movement (the above discussion on whether Lechi and Irgun were fringe movements can so be turned around in contemporary setting). The Israeli intelligence sources say that the families of the suicide bombers receive rich benefits (= six years' wages) from Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries. The whole world is riddled with Saudi-sponsored terrorism, not just Israel. Earlier, terrorism had only the backing of the U.S. government, but after 9/11 even some U.S. intellectuals, who think they are somehow undermining the U.S. foreign policy, have lent it their moral support. Every time a suicide bomber goes off, there is a chorus of Western intellectuals singing: "This shows that the military incursions don't stop the suicide bombers". At the same time the affluent Arab countries are happy to subsidize the families of the suicide bombers. The suicide bombings are achieving in the West exactly what they were supposed to achieve: turning the opinion against Israel. Arab peace proposals have proved what they are: a Trojan horse.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Sunday May 12, 2002 at 2:03 pm
To Bobby L letter of May 12. It's a coincidence, of course, but a nice one, that while I was reading this last letter of yours, I heard on my open TV set how Mr. Sharon is desparately fighting, in a very emotional speach, against the central committee of his Likud Party, which is composed of some 3,000 right wing hardliners, to prevent them from passing a resolution that forbid him from proposing a Palestinian state. You may look upon it as the irony of history, but it is very real and it happens right now! You may make of it whatever you like, but in my humble opinion it goes to show that even the most hardliner of Israeli politicians, once they assume the responsibility of running the state, would never close the door for peace. This was exactly what the late Menachem Begin (a real right winger and not my cup of tea at all) did in 1977, and this is what even Mr. Sharon, whom I dislike even more, will do, if only the other side will come with clean hands and good faith to the table.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday May 14, 2002 at 12:02 am
Has anyone noticed that Moshe has taken over the discussion, writing long diatribes of revisionist history? As for myself, i am glad that the Likud came out yesterday with their true colors. To anyone who really believed the Jews were interested in peace, I suggest that Likud's statement is representative of the Israeli position all along which has been to grab as much land as possible and not give it back. I understand the israeli fear for security....after all, they are squatters. Watch the representatives on the airwaves; when asked about the Likud's position, they keep attacking Arafat.
sarah belletto
san rafael
ca, usa - Tuesday May 14, 2002 at 3:52 pm
Regarding Jari point that the Sauidi initiative does not recognise Israel as a state, I think it is really hair splitting. The declarations of Saudi representatives is clear on this. Of course the whole thing is only an opening gambit with a statement of intent. The intent is clear: give the Israeli an incentive to negotiate with the Palestinians by telling them that once they come to an agreement with them, they would have come to an agreement with all their neighbours.
As for "anger", it has to understood in the context of the Saudi incentive to fix the problem. They are genuinly afraid that the Palestine issue will spill over into their monarchy and prompt internal problems, especially since they are allied with the Americans who are allied with Israel. Their internal enemies can provoke local anger against them. Hence the relevance of this to them and to their US allies.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday May 14, 2002 at 4:38 pm
Moshe in Israel, I am familiar with the diferences that existed in 1943. However, presently, the only way to resolve the Israel-Palestinian crysis is not by the way of land grab and colonization. On the contrary, is to respect the UN Resolutions and the International law. If for exmple, Israel isprepared to recognize the Israels Borders, as defined prior to 1965 War, and remove its ilegal settlements from the illegaly occupied terriritories, than perhaps Israel would have legitimate reason to complain if attacked. CREATION OF Palestinian State is not the question if, but whe? and how many more inocent civilians on both sides of the fence should die, for the political inspiration of some leaders. If the Palestinian State makes incursions into Israel, as Israel does into Palestinian territories, application of International laws wouild be applicable.
Carla Berg
Austria - Wednesday May 15, 2002 at 12:26 pm
To Carla Berg letter of May 14. On the whole, I agree with most of what you have to say. I shall have to give a short answer, though, before Sara Belleto slaps me for taking over the forum. The only thing I ask you is: Can you preach the same to the other side as well? You should acknowledge the fact that the Palestinians did make incursions into Israel. Only they came not as an army, but one by one, wrapped with explosive belts. Check carefully and you will find out that Israeli incursions, as you call them, never came BEFORE all kinds of Arab attacks, but only AFTER them, and this has been going now for more than 80 years.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 3:04 am
When Israel "rejected" the peace plan, the "anger" began. So I guess the next question is who really regarded as a statement of intent. Well, Israel did. The Israeli government said that they (... You know what they said! So I won't rehearse what they said, to save us from "hairsplitting".) The same mechanism is at work as at the moment. The enemies of Israel don't even wait until the government has prepared an official statement on the future of the Palestinian state. They attack the voting at the Likud Party conference! Little does it matter that Simon Peres deplored the outcome. Little does it matter that the greatest bogeyman of all, Ariel Sharon, was the one who put forward the proposal. If there is hair-splitting, the hair-splitting is certainly "asymmetrical". You can split hairs about the party conference resolutions without it being called hairsplitting. But once you question the contents and the status of the Saudi peace plan, you are called a hair-splitter. And if we ever start talking about the Jenin "massacre" or the proportional impact of the suicide bombings on the Israeli population, I quess we are playing a "numbers game".
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 11:14 am
The middle east situation is not that difficult to comprehend; prior to l948, there was a Palestinian state (albeit under British mandate).... Then the Israeli state was created on the land of the Palestinians; not too surprising that the Palestinians rejected this. Just think about this happening to your own land. Not content with the partition, the Israelis have acquired more and more land; yes, this additional land was acquired after resistance from the Arabs. Today, the Israelis hold most of the land; they are fully supported financially by the US. It is our weapons that they use. The Palestinians have no army, no US backed weapons so the weapon of choice has become the suicide bomber. It is atrocious to contemplate that a young person would feel so desperate, so hopeless that they would take their own lives and those of Israeli civilians. The atrociousness should NOT detract from the situation which is what the Israelis have tried to focus the US on. It is NOT like the 9/11 situation; Israel is not an innocent bystander. It is built on stolen land, maintained by foreign subsidy ad it is not about peace...it is about wanting more land. Secure???Never! If I'm squatting on another's property, I can and should anticipate that the owner will attempt to kick me off by any and all means available.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 12:43 pm
There you have it. The Israelis live on the Palestinian land, and the "owner" will attempt to kick them off by any and all means available.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 12:45 pm
The so-called settlements are just a distraction. The point is that "the Israeli state was created on the land of the Palestinians". And the "owner" will kick them off etc.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 2:53 pm
To Sarah Belleto of May 16. You reprimand me for long explanations about history, but then you come and gives us a version of history that not even the Palestinians know about. This is utter nonsense and you should go back to read some history. There was never a Palestinian state before 1948. As a matter of fact, if you ask any Arab living here in 1947 who he is, he would not even recognize the word "Palestinian". There was a British Mandate given to Great Britain with the sole purpose of "establishing a home land for the Jewish people" according to the Balfour decleration of 2.11.1917. And there were Arab people living here under this Mandate. In 1947, when the situation created by British refusing the immigration of Jewish Holocaust survivors into Palestine (please bear in mind that the word Palestine was a technical term describing this piece of land since Roman time, and have no relation at all to your imaginary "Palestinian state")became unbearable, a UN committee of enquiry recommended division of the country along mainly demographic lines between the Jews and the Arabs. This recommendation was adopted by the general assembly in res. 181 on 29.11.1947. The Jews accepted this resolution and the Arabs did not, and Immediately attacked the Jews, an attack joined by all neighbouring Arab states in 15.5.1948, the day the Mandate ended. The Arabs agressors were defeated and the rest you know. This is the correct history in a nutshell. Of course we are speaking about a complex conflict involving territorial, religious, cultural and humanitarian aspects, and there were wrong doings and mistakes performed by each side, but giving such a biased and misguided and so detached from the facts interpretation of history as yours will certainly lead to more troubles and will contribute nothing towards a reasonable solution.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 4:04 pm
It is clear that there was no Plestinian state, in the same way there was no Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian or Iraqi states. So in your opinion it would have been appropriate to give Syria to the Armenians, Lebanon to the Kopts, Iraq to the Kurds and Jordan to the Gypsies.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 5:14 pm
To Shibl Mourad of May 16. It is always a pleasure to read you, as you keep a balanced view and try to stick to the historical facts as they are. So I assume that we agree on the fact that there was no Palestinian state either in 1947 or ever after (please tell it to Sarah, she will maybe take it easier coming from you). Now for your comments about the proper solution for the specific cases of some other minorities in the Middle East. Although you put them together as a group, you know very well that these are very different cases that should be treated separately. The Armenians don't need Syria, as they have a homeland in Armenia. The Kopts are a religious minority in Egypt, but they consider themselves as part of the Egyptian nation, so why do you send them to Lebanon? As for the Gypsies and Jordan, you better explain to me what the connection is. And when we come to the Kurds in Iraq, I am not so sure that giving them a state in their part of this country is such a bad idea. It may well have prevented the horror of Hlabche (The Kurdish town Saddam bombed with nerve gas, killing more than 5000). And of course, all these examples are very different from the Palestinian-Israeli case. Remember I never suggested that the Israelis should have all of the land, but that the solution should involve a division. Let me put it more simply. It's either you agree that the Jews have some claim in this part of the world, or you don't. If you believe the first (as most Israelis believe now that the Palestinians should have a state), a solution has some chance. If you don't, it means the Jewish state should, according to your view, disappear in one way or another. In that case, I am afraid, we are in for a very long and bloody battle, because we are simply not going to please everybody by disappearing.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 16, 2002 at 11:21 pm
I guess that my father's birth certificate must be wrong since it is dated l908 and is issued by Palestine.... Oh, well, what can I say? I guess that the Palestinians really need to begin what the Jews have been doing for 60 years...ever-reminding us of the Holocaust. It's kind of funny to me that the only UN decision ever honored by Israelis was the one giving them a state. If only they were still inclined to heed the UN...just now, I heard breaking news that there is a new incursion into Jenin. Hey, how about Jenin???Didn't the UN want to investigate what happened there? Is it my faulty memory that remembers the Israelis denying them access? Moshe, if you stop stealing land, you will not have to defend yourself. Just stop with what your people have already grabbed. Why is it that your people always want more? And, if my words offend you, keep in mind that this board is for discussion of the Middle East...presumably Arabs. So, if you would like validation, take it to an Israeli board.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Friday May 17, 2002 at 1:45 am
To Sarah letter of May 16. First, there is nothing personal here, so I am not at the least offended. We exchange views, I believe, and that's all. Second, your point about the birth certificate of your father issued by the Palestine province authorities of the Ottoman Empire has no relation whatsoever to a Palestinian state, of course (don't take my word about it, take that of Shibl Mourad). There are many Jews that can produce the same certificate. Does it make them Palestinians? Third, I maintain that your view of the conflict is in error because you avoid acknowledging that there is a cycle here of cause and effect, where the pattern is quite simple. It always starts with Arab agression and violence, goes for a stronger Israeli retaliation wherein the Arabs are losing, sometimes they are just defeated, in others they also lose land. Instead, you go to your simplistic view that it is all Israeli stealing land from the Arabs. Let me ask you then, if this is the case, why did we sign a peace treaty with Egypt and return all of Sinai, which we could easily hold on to? Why did we sign the Oslo Accord with the PLO and gave back all the towns and cities in the Gaza strip and the West Bank? And why we were ready to give back much more in Camp David, and let the Palestinians have their own state (as I, and according to last poles, 65% of the Israelis, think they should have) in the Camp David talks, if all we want is just to steal land? You are entitled to your view of the world, of course, but in my humble opinion it just doesn't go along with the facts. Now, the main question stays and I will very much appreciate an honest answer: Do you agree that we have some claim in this country and that we can have a certain part of it we can keep as a Jewish state or not? I believe that this is the solution most of the world agree to. Otherwise you cannot understand why most of the states in the world recognize Israel. The root of the conflict is the fact that many Arab states and people still cnnot bring themselves to the point of acknowledging this solution. What happens next is almost ever the same. A certain Arab state or organization that does not believe in Israel right to exist, initiates a violent attack on Israel, Israel retaliates and its retaliation hurts more because it is the stronger side. Then the Arab and their supporters jump and cry foul. Now I have to feel for them and for you, being the weak side and the unjust side at the same time is very frustrating. You have to find comfort in strong words and all kinds of damning the "stealers, robbers and murderers". But as long as the Palestinians and other Arabs do not take a long hard look at the mirror, they are likely to stay where they are. Come on, leave violence aside and try to reach a reasonable compromise, instead of dwelling on the injustice you think was done to you. I admit that the Palestinians are the main victims of this conflict and they are worthy of a much better fate, but they have to realize that their victimization is 95% self-inflicted.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday May 17, 2002 at 9:08 am
In regard to the statement that either I accept the Jewish claim for all or part of Palestine, or I should call for the destruction of Israel. I would say neither. And I think it is this that creates a lot of confusion in undertsanding the moderate (by their standard :) Plestinian view.
1) The massive immigration of Jews to Palestine was an indirect act of colonisation by whoever was occupying the land at the time.
2) Once the immigrants were there and they have setteled they have equal right to the land as the previous inhabitants.
3) The religo-racist view of some of those immigrants was destructive to the rest of the population as it advocated policies that would at best create more immigration that was not welcomed by the majority of the inhabitants.
4) The division proposed by the UN was disproportionate towoards the Jewish portions and rejecting it was a natural and predictable reaction by the rest of the population.
5) Again the past being the past, all Israelis Jewish or otherwise have the right to live in this land.
6) Israel as state have created a lot of damage to the livelihood of Palestinians. In particular barring them from returning to their land and confiscating the properies they left.
7) Israel is a religo/racist state (is that bad???), even though it is benovelant to its muslim and christian minorities.
8) The settlements are the most destructive element as they would recreate the same situation in the little segments of land that could settle those who suffered from the above injustices.
Shibl Mouard
Canada - Friday May 17, 2002 at 9:12 am
A little remark about the Moshe comment "There are many Jews that can produce the same certificate. Does it make them Palestinians?". Of course it does: Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze and others should have been considered equal in the eye of the law, had Palestine developed into a normal state. It is the view that the world is split into Jews and others that has created this conflict and continue to fuel it.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday May 17, 2002 at 11:36 pm
Moshe,I do agree that Jews can also produce birth cerificates from Palestine. That is why there are Jewish Palestinians, Christian Palestinians and Arab Palestinians. Prior to l948, that is how it was...My father would always tell me that when he grew up, there was peace and that Jews and Arabs were cousins...like Isaac and Ishmael. Of course, that was before the Zionist crazies got out of control, before the Holocaust occurred and before the likes of Sharon and Netanyhu. Until the last year, I have been hopeful that a Jewish and Palestinian state could really happen. Now, I have realized that it will not and that every day that goes by, a little more land gets taken and a few more Palestinians killed while Israel continues to grab and grab. For you to state that there never was a Palestine is very troubling; You seek to deny my roots and that will not happen as long as I live and my children and their children live...for you see, we too remember and we too shall return.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Saturday May 18, 2002 at 4:38 am
I agree that one has to choose between the Jews' title to this land or their disappearance from Palestine. To say that you don't have to make this choice doesn't mean anything. It only allows the critics of Israel to watch for Israel's next move and find fault with it, without producing anything constructive themselves. To say that this is the Jews against the rest of the world is total non-sense. Have the majority of the world's state been hypnotized by Zionist propaganda into recognizing the Jewish state? Do you really have such a low estimate of the thought processes of most of the world? It is not what you want, it is what you are entitled to. You cannot have everything you want. Now that the domestic law concept of property has been introduced into this discussion, I would remind you that there is such a thing as a transaction. The owner cedes the land to the next owner. Thereby he ceases to be the rightful owner. He cannot threaten to "return" because it is after all his land. How that transaction takes place is another matter. I would be very interested in hearing whether the Jews have actually broken any law in acquiring the land, or is the term "illegal" used only as a political slur? In terms of international law, the transfer of the land to the Jewish state seems to be OK. The only problem is rather the presence of the Palestinians there! What are they doing there? They chose not to accept to have a state of their own, and even after the Oslo accords they chose the intifada instead. Are we really supposed to be so stupid as to think that the problem is the Likud party conference where that one party turned down the proposal on the Palestinian state? For Yasser Arafat to utter such statements is a naked violation of the principle of non-intervention and of the internal self-determination of the state of Israel in itself. On the other hand, Arafat has sensed the change of wind better than the hard-line postings on this forum. He has admitted that the Palestinian Authority was dysfunctional from the start. He has admitted that the suicide bombers have received financial support from abroad. Never mind that he himself had earlier said that they would march to Jerusalem by the millions. I think Moshe hit the nail on the head when he said that it is hard to be the weaker and at the same time the unjust side. If we shift the focus away from the right of existence of the State of Israel, which is not in question according to most of the world, we have to evaluate the presence of the so-called Palestinian people on the land that they now have from the legal point of view. Can you really call the settlements illegal, when the Palestinians themselves have a tenuous title to the land? It would be different if they had a state of their own, but that doesn't seem to be what they want, unless they can be sure that this is what the Israelis do NOT want, so that they can be sure that they never will get a state of their own. You have admitted that the Jews should not have a state of their own, because they are on the Palestinian land. Why should the one voice that speaks for Israel be kicked off even from this discussion? And as to Jenin etc., it is inappropriate to refer to the "fact-finding" mission that was called off. Few of us had such a clear understanding at that moment that the Palestinians are really going to kick off the Jews off "their" land by any means. The Palestinians are no friends of the UN. They need the UN to point the finger at the state of Israel, which isn't hard to do, because it is the one party that has accepted the responsibilites of a state. The Palestinians want no responsibilities, only rights. As to the question if the Jews have caused enormous suffering to the Palestinians, I think the Palestinians would have left the land a long time ago if the Jews hadn't made it so attractive. Besides, why would the Palestinians want to run away once they have picked up a fight with the Israelis? As to the recurring theme of colonization, how can anyone say that the Jews and the Arabs lived peacefully together before the British mandate, if the Jews were the stratagem of British colonialism? The Jews moved to the land in the middle of the 19the century. And to shift the blame to Europe for the Holocaust is a cheap shot, because the Arabs certainly didn't mind it at the time, and they are in fact calling for the annihilation of the Jews in front of our very eyes. I would like to repeat Moshe's advice that the Arabs should take a long hard look at the mirror. I can hardly believe that we have heard that the Saudi "anger" has something to do with Saudi self-defence. The context was financing the suicide bombers. It sounds like the most natural thing in the world that the Saudis finance the suicide bombers, because it is the most natural thing in the world that they are so angry. A nice try. Of course they are angry, because they don't recognize the State of Israel. As long as the Jews are there, they are not just occupying the Palestinian land (if there is any such thing) but the Saudi land. Of course the Saudis are angry: the Jews are squatting on their land. I guess the next thing for you to do is redefine terrorism, because there it too much stuff in support of it here already.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Saturday May 18, 2002 at 4:38 am
To Sarah of May 17 and Shibl Mourad letters. What you are trying to suggest is that the right solution is what is called "the binational state" where there is one state (be it Palestine or Israel) where all the inhabitants are equal citizens regardless of origin, religion, gender etc. This solution has been popular in certain circles of the Jewish left in the 30's, but was later rejected by both sides. There is too much evidence from all over the world that this kind of solution, so nice in principle, does not work in real life, and I shall just mention the recent disintegration of Jugoslavia. The European political culture is built even today on the principle of a nation state, which can tolerate (or not, as some events of the past remind us) some minorities, but only when there is a clear majority of one ethnic group. Your solution would mean for us that we should give up the main theme of Zionism, which is that there will be one corner of the world that any Jew can come to to find refuge from persecution where he formerly lived. This was accepted by the international community and this has led to the division resolution of 1947. Now Shibl argued that this resolution was unfair towards the local Arabs. I think that it was unfair towards the Jews, because 60% of the land they were given is desert. Anyway, did this give both the local Arabs and all the neighbouring Arab states the right to immediately attack their Jewish neighbours with the expressed aim of "throwing them into the sea"? The outcome of this crime, which you consider as the greatest unjustice done to your people, I see as historical justice in its best. But now, where does it lead us? The Arabs continued to attack the Israelis in later times and this only led to them defeated time and again and lose more and more land. In the mean time, a new Palestinian identity was born, not the imaginary multinational Palestinian identity you see in your vision, but a national one, including only the Arab side of the equation. I don't think, and I don't think you should believe either, that any of these sides will be ready now to give up his national identity, whether 3000 years old like ours or 40 years old like that of the Palestinians, and replace it with the common identity you preach for. So, in my humble opinion, the only realistic solution is a compromise. Like all compromises, it will demand painful concessions from each side, but it is the only way forward. Now there is a reasonable compromise on offer, which is the Barak-Clinton outline of 2000. I know, despite whatever you say, that the Israelis will accept this compromise. The tragedy is that the Palestinians are not ready yet. They still think, as your letters show so clearly, that their vesion of justice is the only one that exists, and thereby give ammunition to Israeli hardliners of all kinds. It is your undeniable right to keep insisting on your version of the truth, but I am afraid that by doing that from a very comfortable existence in the New World, you are sentencing your kin in the Old World to more and prolonged suffering. A very similar and very typical approach has been shown all theough the years by Palestinian leadership who ordered the sacrifices of their people while living very comfortably in western capitals or in Gaza and Ramallah. Unless you find it within yourself that the time has come to strike a deal where each side has to give up on his own very established version of justice and adopt compromise as the solution, we are in for more bloodshed that will get us nowhere. I am struggling for this here, and I agree that the settlements should be dismantled as soon as possible. It is not because I think it is unjust that Jews will be prermitted to live in all parts of the land. After all there are 1.2 Million Arabs living in the smaller Israel, but because this must be part of the compromise I am speaking about. Are you ready to give up on anything at all?
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday May 19, 2002 at 12:14 am
It has been said so often that it's taken as a fact that Arafat walked away from a wonderful deal...first of all, both Clinton and Barak were at the end of their terms and no final offer was ever made. Second, there are no notes of these meetings according to Israelis who wee actually there.... Third, the Palestinian position is blithely portrayed as irrational when in fact, the Jews have made it clear that they have no intention of a unified Jerusalem. Since that city gives roots to 3 major religions, this position is untenable. Finally, don't forget what percentage of the land has already been compromised by the Arabs. As for the settlements, they keep going up despite US AND UN calls to stop. It is absurd to think that American jews have dual citizenship and can leave the US anytime and settle in Israel while the Palestinians remain in chained encampments. How do you think it feels to have your home bulldozed so that American Jewish zealots can build their homes?
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Sunday May 19, 2002 at 1:20 am
To Sara Beletto of May 19th. I shall take you one by one on this last letter. First, Barak was not in the end of his office at Camp David, his tenure was only 15 months old at the time, and normally we have elections every 4 years. It's because the way Arafat responded with renewal of violence that Barak's term was shortened and early elections were made. So Arafat proved for a second time that it is within his power to replace the Israeli PM. The first time he was given Netanyahu instead of Peres, the second time he has got Sharon instead of Barak. A good deal indeed... And to say that no final offer was made is a great distortion of the truth. Barak was so keen on making peace, that the offers kept coming and even got better for the Palestinians up until the Taba meeting in January 2001, a month before the elections that brought Sharon to power. Yet Arafat wouldn't listen, because, much like you do, he still thinks these offers are not enough. It's his right as well as yours, but the tragedy is that the poor Palestinian people are those who have to bear the consequences. Your point about Jerusalem carries even less logic. You seem to mix a religious issue with a political issue. The religious rights of any of the 3 great religions were better served and kept under Israeli rule than in any previous time (remember that we have been barred from our most holy place for all the years between 1948 and 1967). The political issue of the day to day running of the city is a completely separate thing. Jerusalem has never been the political capital of any other nation apart from the Jewish nation, yet in Barak's offer the control of the Arabian neighborhoods was to be passed to the Palestinians and it was suggested that they could establish their capital there. I don't think any Israeli can make a more generous offer and if you are waiting for one, you will probably wait forever. About the point that a large percentage of the land was already compromised by the Arabs I have already explained to you in former letters that it did not have to be so. It was the direct result of the Arab's choise of agression and violence all along. Moreover, if you keep this as a major "modus operandi" then it's little wonder the settlements keep growing. Had you taken the Barak-Clinton offer, maybe the settlements were not there in few short years. You cannot preach and execute violence, terrorism and hatred and expect your opponent to do nothing and sit quitely. I am opposed to the settlements almost as you are, but you keep giving good reasons and excuses to the Israeli fanats who live there. As for the Palestinians that live in chained encampments, let me ask you who kept them there? Its their Arab brothers who would not let them start a new life and encourage them to settle, even temporarly, and help them. All in the same time Israel absorbed a greater number of Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, none of whom stayed in a refugee camp. And for the last 7 years of so, all of these refugee camps are under the rule of the Palestinian authority. Please tell me why did this corrupt authority kept the people chained in these camps? It has got an unbelievable amount of money from a helping world, yet almost none of it ever reached the people in those camps, the condition of whom you lament. and lastly, not even one Palestinian home was bulldozed to make room for any Jewish settler. I chalenge you to prove otherwise, because here you talk apparently about something you know very little about. You should know that great care has been taken to ensure that settlements were built only either on state owned land, or on land purchased legally from Arab land owners. Whenever Palestinian houses were bulldozed, it was because they were homes of terrorists or homes that harbored terrorist activities. Don't get me wrong, I already told you I think all these settlements should be dismantled and evacuated, but sticking to the facts would make you no harm.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday May 19, 2002 at 2:43 pm
Moshe: I think that you honestly believe all of the above; from what I've learned, Israelis schooling selectively leaves out great parts of history. You are writing your own words but unfortunately, they are the talking points taught early on in Israeli schools and perpetuated through the Jewish media. I understand how it is that you are so misinformed about the settlement issue; there is NO reason for expanision, NO reason for US Jews to go there and build on Arab lands... Whether or not Arafat compromises or not, the settlement issue is and has been a non-starter... NO SETTLEMENTS...that has been a given and it's only been a question of when and how the Israelis accomplish that. It is clear that Sharon will not do this; clear that no one except Peres who even addresses the issue and I tend not to really put much faith in what he says since he waffles so much. As for Barak, you flatter Arafat by giving him credit for the loss of his office.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Sunday May 19, 2002 at 4:29 pm
Sarah. No need to break into open doors. I have said it before and I shall say it again, I think the settlements should be dismantled and evacuated. OK. I am ready to concede that and so are many other Israelis. But what are the Palestinians ready to concede? And what that's nonsense about Israeli schools etc.? What makes you think that your version of history, which I admit I don't know what school has taught you, is more correct than mine, or have left out lesser parts? I have already went to 4 wars here and was part of making this history you are talking about and you try to teach me about parts that are missing from Israeli schools? Don't be offended, but it's a joke! Its funny you know, when people like me, who are fighting here for a solution that will acknowledge the Palestinian's right to a state of their own, find that the supporters of the palestinian cause abroad are supplying ammunition to the right wing hardlners here. Because if you insist that you only have a monpoly on the truth, and you are never wrong and you should be given whatever you deem you have the right to, than the hardliners are justified when they say that there is no chance for an agreement and then why give you anything at all? And I am sorry to tell you, and please don't take offence, but your last remarks about Sharon, Peres and Barak just go to show how little you know about the intricate and complex nature of internal Israeli politics. So let me ask you directly again in another form. The subtitle of this forum is "How should the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved? How would you advise Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, Palestinian Chairman Arafat, and US President Bush?". Now what is your recommendation for the solution? I already said that the solution should be along the outline suggested by President Clinton after the Camp David summit. As far as I understand, you do not agree to that, but don't you have any suggestion at all? Do you want to keep saying "Hey guys, I hate you and I want to keep hating you as long as I live". It's your right, of course, but where will it get you? Or for that matter, where did this insistance of the Palestinians on their right to be the "victims" ever got for them? If you keep sticking to negative attitudes, don't be surprised to always get negative results.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday May 20, 2002 at 2:41 am
"Sovereignty" means many things, one of which is having a territory of one's own. Do the Palestinians have sovereignty over "territories"? No. Israel has. Do the Palestinians recognize the Israeli sovereignty? Of course not. According to them, Israel has no sovereignty even over Tel Aviv. Does this mean that the Israelis should leave, or does it mean that the Palestinians are "squatting" on somebody else's land? If so, why haven't they been kicked off "by any and all means available"? The reason is that the UN intervened. So the only title that the Palestinians have to stay there is a humanitarian one. That is why they are called "refugees", even if they hardly fit any definition of "refugee" after so many generations. On the other hand, it seems that a great deal of the demise of the UN can be traced to the Palestinian debacle. Who was surprised to hear that the fortified city of Jenin was under the UN flag? That shows how low the UN has sunk by sticking too closely with the Palestinians. The UN has very little moral authority any more. So the Palestinians can talk as loud as they like, but the fact remains that they are in Palestinian basically because of Israeli hospitality! It is funny that the Palestinian "struggle" is supported by such bombastic statements like "we shall return". I would be very interested to see how many of those people who utter such words would actually move to Palestine after the Jews have moved away? It is too easy to forget one's threats once one has got what one wanted. By the way, the threat was "we too shall return". We too? So do you want the Israelis out or not? Yes or no? It is shocking that even those Arabs that like to portray themselves as moderate are unwilling to recognize the Israelis' right to remain in Israel. Moderate indeed. The only reason why this discussion should be continued at all is to find some modus vivendi, but if the Jews must leave first, that can be called a modus vivendi only in a very distorted worldview. And this all leads to the question of settlements. Has Israel bound itself legally not to establish any new settlements? This is Israeli territory that we are talking about. All we hear are things like calls from the US and the UN. Well, the US has no say in this matter except as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Considering that any prohibition of new settlements would interfere with Israel's use of its own territory, I doubt whether any Security Council resolution to that effect would be legitimate in themselves. Besides, the only such SC resolution prohibiting settlements which has been cited in this discussion so far was from 1948 and the Palestinians refused to recognize it. You don't need any brainwashing in Israeli school system to see that the Palestinian struggle is one of the greatest hoax of our times.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday May 20, 2002 at 10:28 am
I agree with Mosche that a bilateral state is not practical. My posting was trying to explain how a person could beleive in the injustice of the creation of Israel but not in the destruction of Israel.
I was not attempting to propose a solution but I was proposing some priciples that might help builkding a solution: 1) Every person who lives in Israel or Occupied territories has a right to live there.
2) Every refugee coming from this area who has not found a land has a right to return.
3) Those (individuals) whose land was taken in an unjust way should be compensated by those who took it.
The genius of our leaders is to find a way to fufill those criteria while maintaining the aspirations of their poeple. I beleive this was Barak tried to do. His failure should not be blamed on Arafat but on the complexity of the issue.
My personal opinion is that the solution is what everybody proposes. 1) 2 states Israel and Palestine.
2) 67 borders (arbitrary but generally accepted)
2) Financial compensation for Palestinian refugees
3) Financial compensation for Jewish settlers who choose to return to Israel
4) Citizenship for refugees not returning to Palestine and Israel in other states.
5) As an appendix to 4 financial compensation for the states who accpet to give citizenship to those refugees.
In other words peace can be bought. Those who would be interested in paying for it would include to a major extent I think th Saudis and the US. It would be interesting to calculate what the costs would be, and whether it would be realistic.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Monday May 20, 2002 at 1:15 pm
To Shibl Mourad letter of May 20. As I have told you before, I find some comfort in your letters, because it is a single example of someone who sides with the Palestinians, yet is able to see the concerns of the other side. As for your solution, I think it comes close, but should be somewhat qualified to be acceptable by israel. First, as I explained many times before, from our point of view, the prime responsibility for the situation lies with the Arab side for being always the first to open fire. Therefore, the term "compensation" is a non-starter. We can forgo our demand for proper compensation for us and for those Jews who fled the Arab countries, but the other side must do the same. So let's agree that anyone, on both sides, who is in need, will get a "rehabilitation grant". The second thing is that the solution must involve the concept of "two states for two people" and considering the fact that there are already 1.2 Million Palestinian Arabs that lives within the borders of the smaller Israel, there is no place for more coming in because than the domographic balance of Israel as the Jewish state of the two would be jeopardized. Therefore, it must be established that Palestinians from the diaspora have the right to return to the future Palestine, but not to Israel. Much in the same way that every Jew in the world can come to Israel, but not to the future Palestine. Apart from these qualifications, I think an agreement can be reached according to these lines, which in fact are not very different from the Clinton outline.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday May 21, 2002 at 2:52 am
The foremost problem that the creation of the Palestinian state is supposed to solve is the "refugee" problem. However, the solution put forward states that "every refugee coming from this area who has not found a land has a right to return". What do you mean hasn't found a land? This solution creates even more problems, if it does not address the land problem, which is allegedly the root of the problem. It gets worse: "Citizenship for refugees not returning to Palestine and Israel in other states." I get the distinct feeling that this "solution" is only going to aggravate the problem, because it sends the signal that if you create enough problems in your own country, you are offer automatic citizenship in other countries (presumably by preference in North America). Don't you think other countries have a say in this matter as well? Cannot you at least settle for refugee status for starters? Besides, where do you think the money will come from for you appendix 4: "financial compensation for the states who accept to give citizenship to those refugees"? Presumably this money comes from those states that are willing to accept Palestinian "refugees" in the first place, so the countries would only end up subsidizing themselves for granting them citizenship. I also doubt whether "financial compensation" is going to help to get rid of the settlers. Maybe they are not so easily bought as everybody else. How many of them would live in the "settlements" even without Israeli government grants? "Financial compensation for Palestinian refugees"? Compensation for what? For making the "refugee camps" safe havens for terrorists, as they did with the previous handouts? And as if to crown it all: "Every person who lives in Israel or Occupied territories has a right to live there." This would be a very exceptional arrangement, because every state has the right to get rid of non-citizens it doesn't want. This proposal is based on the assumption that the Palestinians have a God-given right to settle down anywhere they like, and any government that doesn't want them, can be bought (with money that comes from themselves). The only way to manipulate anybody into accepting this "plan" is to create a serious humanitarian catastrophe. If the humanitarian catastrophe isn't bad enough, those that have already moved out can threaten to move back, when in fact what they want is to get the rest of the people out. The only way the Palestinians are willing to stay in the state that they have struggled so hard to establish is to get "financial compensation" from abroad. It has been suggested before that the only way to stop the violence is to cut the financial assistance from abroad, so peace can be achieved by NOT buying it, contrary to what is now suggested. To proceed to any drastic measures like a creation of a state, you would have to make it conditional not only on giving the Palestinians more and more rights, but also on their duty (at least some of them) to move there (or at least to stay there). The whole thing is a hoax, and the crux of the problem is the misuse of the word "refugee", which is supposed to make some people feel good about themselves by lending a helping hand. I just don't understand how the refugees can live for generations on the territory of the state which they are allegedly refugees from, while the other states have thrown the refugees out of their territory.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday May 21, 2002 at 11:34 am
Responding to Jari's comment about compensation.
Of course the only states who have any responsabilities are the Israeli and potential Palestinian states. However as we have seen in the past some other states are willing to help, my proposal is a way to channel all the help into a final solution.
Nobody is obliged to help financially or by providing citizenship rights. But some will have some interest in doing so. For example the Saudis might find the rise in terrorism spilling over to their kingdom, they might take a strategic decision to contribute financially to solving the solution in a peaceful way.
Even those who deny the premise that an injustice have occured might contribute for self serving reasons.
As for financial contribution to states who settle refugees, I am thinking of states who settle a substantial number as in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
Do not forget that peace with Egypt is being paid for by the American tax payer.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday May 21, 2002 at 11:21 pm
Just browsing through the new posts....I find it strange that we conceive of the Saudis as being any help to the region at all. Let us not forget that the l9 hijacker of 9/11 were all Saudis as is Bin laden. I grew up understanding that the Saudis were only out for themselves and that the "royalty" was nothing but sheer and utter corruption. Guess that is where the bond is wit h the United States. I harbor no illusions about their "assistance" or their fear of terrorism. The Palestinians have been a pawn by both Bin Laden and the israelis; everyone has jumped leaps and bounds since 9/11 and suddenly the US is concerned about having suicide bombers in this country...I sure don't think so and to even suggest it underlines the lack of understanding of what the sense of hopeless desperation felt by these youngesters is all about. This is not really in response to anything and I know that this board should be about solutions but folks, as an American Palestinian just over 50 years old, it seems to me right now that the world is a mess, that the US has done more damage since 9/11 than anyone could have done before and that the only winners (if they can be called that) are the hardline Israelis who seek to expand their landholding. Maybe tomorrow will bring brighter and more optimistic thoughts.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 3:49 am
The following message came in today: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 7:42 am
The Atta report if true confirms one aspect of this conflict that is probably not understood by the west.
Independent of the justice of their cause the Palestinian suicide bombers are proving that they are willing to die for it. A lot of other arabs and muslims will be "inspired" by them and this is going to create a major threat to all totalitarian arab regimes.
It is in the interest of those regimes, wether they recognise it or not, to find a quick solution.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 7:57 am
Jari could you send us the reference to the Atta report.
I did a quick search on the web and found some amusing results. Here are some reports:
1) He is reported to be gay (gay rights group very upset)
2) US intelligence say he is linked to Iraqis (later found to he false report)
3) Report he is linked to the Syrians
What is confirmed is that he is an Egyptian the son of wealthy Mercedes (Nazi connection) driving businessman who studied architecture in Germany (hummm Nazi connections again)
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 9:41 am
Regarding Sarah's comment about the Saudis. My personal opinion is that next to Israel they are the second most bigotted country in the world.
Their laws disallow any non-muslim religious practice. The only reason I place Israel first is because while a Jew can declare himself Muslim and be equally treated by Muslim law a Muslim can not declare himself Jewish. So Saudi intolerance is destructive to dignity and beleif while Israeli racism is destructive to the individual livelihood.
Israel law of return (allowing all Jews to return) combined with its absentee law (forbidding Palestinian residents to return) is to my knowledge the only racist law left in the world.
I am sure Jari and Mosche can supply other examples and I am looking forward to them :).
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 11:50 am
Let's say I got the information from a source that I believe to be reliable. I don't think anybody would make things like that up, because the information is too easily verifiable/falsifiable. As to the last of your messages, I don't think you can get more anti-Semitic than that. The problem that you raised has nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with Judaism. If somebody is infringing on somebody else's freedom of religion, it is you. Do you suddenly want to become a Jew, or what is your problem? As for the racio-religious situation in Israel, I would like to refer to the recent article (under section "State of Israel" at the end )in Jewish World Review: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.html . As to religious freedom in Israel, the State doesn't only allow Arabs to participate in political life. The most holiest places of one offshoot of Islam (I guess that is a fair description), the Baha'i faith, are located on Mount Carmel. Just to show how antagonistic the State of Israel is to the Baha'i faith, the State of Israel issued an official postage stamp in celebration of their terrace project on Mount Carmel! And finally as to the citizenship solution that you brought up earlier, I can't claim I can make much of it. Why should you want to become a citizen of Syria, if you have a Palestinian state? I guess the closest attempt at such a hybrid solution was the period of Arab occupation in 1948 - 1967.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 12:28 pm
I agree with Jari that Israel is extremly tolerant to non-Jewish residents. This does not annull the fact that the Right of Return Law is a law that differenciates individuals on the basis of race.
The reason I bring up the right of conversion is not to say that a religion based on race is bad, but that any law that discriminates on religious ground in conjungtion with a relgion that discrimates on racial grounds is a racist law.
I think defending your position is more helpful that accusing me of being anti-semtic which I am not.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 12:36 pm
To Shibl Mourad of May 22. Just for your knowledge, there is a very similar law in Germany, which gives free entrance to Germany to anyone with German origins. Its ironic, of course, that Israel and Germany share similar laws regarding such a sensitive issue, and I did not make any researsh as to which of the two was first to establish that law. Now I think you are mixing issues of nationality with the issue of freedom of religion. In Israel there is almost complete freedom of practicing any religion. On the other hand, it is a nation state, like so many are in the world, and it keeps the right to determine who is welcome and who is not, again like many other countries. The difference being that this solution is for a nation who was deprived from having sovereignity for about 2000 years and was very dispersed all over the world. It is only natural, under the circumstances, that every Jew is welcome to Israel. I don't understand why you look upon it as racist.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 12:56 pm
Shibl, why do you take offence at "anti-Semitic", while you call Israel "racist" and keep repeating (incredibly) that it isn't bad? And as to the peculiarities of religious conversion, what is the attitude of Islam to QUITTING Islam?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 1:21 pm
The difference between the German law and the Israeli law is the definition of a German: a person who lived in Germany for a sufficient time to earn German nationality.
The German law does not specify the race of that inhabitant. What would you say of the German law excluded Jewish Germans. I would say it is racist.
I think the same applies here, let us assume for the moment that all Jews have some claim of previous occupancy of Israel, surely a Palestinians from Haifa has an equal claim.
A law that will discriminate against past residents based on racial grounds seems to be a racist law.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 1:29 pm
As to Jari's point, first I have not accused you of being racist I am simply stating that an Israel law is and providing my reasoning.
Second I am not taking offence I am just telling you that I am not anti-Semetic in that I view all human beings as equal and free to their beleif as long as it does not infringe on others freedoms.
The attitude of Islam to QUITTING Islam is that it is not allowed. Muslims have the right to their belif as long as they do not enchrine it in laws and actions. In cases where they do, as in most Arab countries I think this practice is to be fought. I am against relegious discrimination.
However, I view religious discrimination as less evil than racism as long as a person has the choice of switching religion and avoiding harm.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 2:20 pm
To Shibl Mourad of May 22. Just for your knowledge, there is a very similar law in Germany, which gives free entrance to Germany to anyone with German origins. Its ironic, of course, that Israel and Germany share similar laws regarding such a sensitive issue, and I did not make any researsh as to which of the two was first to establish that law. Now I think you are mixing issues of nationality with the issue of freedom of religion. In Israel there is almost complete freedom of practicing any religion. On the other hand, it is a nation state, like so many are in the world, and it keeps the right to determine who is welcome and who is not, again like many other countries. The difference being that this solution is for a nation who was deprived from having sovereignity for about 2000 years and was very dispersed all over the world. It is only natural, under the circumstances, that every Jew is welcome to Israel. I don't understand why you look upon it as racist.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday May 22, 2002 at 2:56 pm
To Shibl Mourad, as far as I know, the German law is different and it specifies "German origin", even if the person in question never lived in Germany. I may be wrong, though. Now what about the story of the Germans who were living in both the Czech republic and the Poland of today that cannot return there. Or the Hindus that cannot return to Pakistan, or the Greek who were deported from Turkey in the 20's. The world is full of examples like these. There is one fact which is unpleasant for you or for Sarah Belleto, for that matter, so you simply ignore it in all our discussions. It is the fact that the Palestinian population lost their country for good, and the right of return with it, because they attacked their Jewish neighbours immediately the day after the 29/11/1947 UN resolution was made. You simply cannot expect Israel to accept back the people who were responsible for the 1948 war, especially after 54 more years of continued terrorism. As much as Poland or Czechia will never accept back the Germans, who were the agressors who started WW2, Israel would never accept back the Palestinians (although Israel alows in few thousands Palestinians every year on Family unification grounds). I understand the frustration that comes from being the weak and the unjust side at the same time, but you should know that there are consequences to everything a nation does. Every terrorist action, every suicide bombing, makes the case of the right of return of the Palestinians even weaker.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 2:54 am
I nice way to find out what Islam teaches about quitting Islam is to search the web by the word "apostasy". I recommend the following link: http://www.hf.uib.no/smi/pao/longva.html . The short answer is found in a prophetic hadith: Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Hadith vol. 9:57. A concise introduction to the unsavoury tenets of Islam is http://members.aol.com/thetruth/donttell.htm . And did you know that according to some Muslims the Bible actually teaches suicide bombing? http://www.answering-christianity.com/suicide_bombing_in_the_bible.htm . Funny, because otherwise the Muslim doctrine is that the Old and New Testaments have been corrupted by the Jews and the Christians. Finally, if not BEING an anti-Semite is reason enough for not being CALLED an anti-Semite, you shouldn't call Israel or even Judaism "racist", because they are not. Do you remember the Falashas who accused the State of Israel of racism because their blood donations were not accepted? Who are the Falashas? The black Jews! And the State of Israel has recognized them as Jews! Not to mention the "tsabras", the Arabic Jews etc.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 9:09 am
"It is the fact that the Palestinian population lost their country for good, and the right of return with it, because they attacked their Jewish neighbours" I am glad that at least you recognise it is their country, and that they have suffered collective punishement because of a civil war they lost. The fact that this loss is exactly the outcome planned by the Zionist movement before they even set foot on Palestine to create a civil war is simply a coincidence then.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 9:23 am
Jari your critqiue of Islam is correct. I think if we dig enough in most religions we will find unpleasent ideas. The question is how modern beleivers interpret the relegion and not the relegion itself. The question that worries me is when this lead to laws that are unjust.
So my objection is not to Islam or Judaism but to the addition of the law you mentioned in a legal system, which is the case in some countries and should be condemned. It is an attack on human dignity and religious rights.
As for suicide bombing it is amusing (but irrelevant) that the most widely known and oldest recorded suicide attack was the Samson destruction of the temple.
You have to admit that he is a mythical hero not only of the jews but in general because he sacrificed his life to inflict damage on the enemy. I would not be surprised that had the Zionist-Palestinian struggle tip to the other side that we would be plagued today by "The Samson Brigades"
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 1:00 pm
What makes the Islam different from the Christianity and Judaism is the political weight of fundamentalism. Yes, you can say that "if we dig enough in most religions...". There is fundamentalism in Christianity (from which the term has spread to other religions) and Judaism as well, but none of these fundamentalist "cults" have such backing from monolithic state like Saudi Arabia or Iran. If one is allowed to gauge the popularity of fundamentalism by some outward characteristics, like the commandment of Surah 33:59: "Women should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad)", fundamentalism is much more widespread than one would care to think. In the "west" it is particularly noticeable, and deliberately so. And it is not just the women with "outer garments" that we are talking about, but to assess the numeric strength of fundamentalism abroad we have to remember that to every woman there is at least one man with similar beliefs. How many other fundamentalist commandments do these people observe? What is their connection to fundamentalist regimes back home? You can say it's not such a big deal, but the reason terrorism isn't such a big threat in the west (normally) is that we are fortified to our teeth with metal detectors and electronic surveillance! Is Islam different from the rest? Well, if Islam wants to distinguish itself from the other two religions, it is sure to stick to its most violent aspects. But fundamentalism isn't exactly the problem. Seeing a "suicide bomber" in Samson must be interpreted exclusively in terms of psycho-pathology. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest any "brigades" whatsoever, and I find it disturbing that you toy with the idea that the Jews would even sink so low just because some Muslims have. Besides, your thought experiment of a Muslim wanting to convert to Judaism was deliberately misleading. According to the Islamic law, any Muslim contemplating conversion to Judaism wouldn't live that long, so it isn't Judaism that is the problem. Besides, Judaism has had its proselytizing periods as well, and guess what, in anti-Semitic literature these are considered an even bigger problem than the "clandestine" policy of contemporary Judaism.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 1:31 pm
To Shibl Mourad of May 23. I never said it was not their country as much as it is ours, That's why I preach compromise. But everything else you said in this letter is a untrue and you know it. Calling the vicious attack of the Palestinians and later 7 Arab countries on the Jews of Israel a "civil war", at it was some neutral thing that just "happened", is a gross twisting of the truth. And to say on top of that that it was planned by the Zionist movement in advance can be called only a damn lie. I appreciate you too much to think that you invented it, but you probably read too much later Palestinian propaganda that came with the desperate need to somehow justify both their aggression and their lost.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 23, 2002 at 11:06 pm
In response to Mosche, what I referred to as planned by the Zionist movement is not the war even though it would be predictable. What was planned and widely discussed was "the arab issue" ie what to do with the local population in the context of a Jewish homeland. I agree that soem idealists saw a harmony in which the 2 poeple will complement each other, but the dominant view was that it was going to be problem that will require some population transfer or the like. Saying that such ideas are only a reaction to Arab violence is a misreading of history I think. The war was of course the perfect excuse to achieve this objective. It is as if you point a gun to someones head and when he tries to defend himself you shoot him and say: "well it was self defense, I would not have shot if he did not act violently."
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday May 24, 2002 at 7:09 am
I don't know what you are talking about. What objective was achieved? The control of the West Bank and Gaza? The Zionist movement must have failed miserably, because some of the holiest places of Judaism, like Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, are on the Palestinian-controlled territory. There is a desperate drive to make the Palestinians look like the victims, perhaps because the Arabs have seen victimization work so well for the Jews. According to the Palestinians, the Jews got their state because of victimization, so maybe the Palestinians turned down the offer of a Palestinian state, because they didn't feel victimized enough.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday May 24, 2002 at 8:49 am
To Shibl Mourad of May 23. I must say that I admire your subtle use of words. I shall refer here only to few examples. In this letter you speak about the Arabs as the "local" population. This is of course part of the false effort to describe the conflict as another case of a struggle between a "local" population and a "foreign" colonial force. There is nothing further from the truth. Jews are as "local" in the Land of Israel (I shall use this technical term instead of Palestine, although they have the same territorial meaning, because it seems that you and others tend to give the term "Palestine" some mystical implications it never had in reality) as the Arabs are. They lived here long before the Arabs came. They continued to live here all through all the occupations by Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks and Ottoman Turks. They migrated to the only land they could call their own in the 16th and the 17th Century, and they renewed this migration in the 19th Century. They did not come to this land to enslave Arabs or to exploite them as did the colonials. There is nothing more just or more natural than Jews coming to live in the Land of Israel. The mixture of Arab speaking ethnic groups that lived in this land, Moslems, Christians, Druz, Bedouins, were not more local not less local than the Jews. In contrast to the Jews, however, they never formed a separate national independent identity here. They were the subjects of some this or that foreign empire. They did not own most of the land, nor did they fill all parts of the country. Almost half of this population present in 1947 immigrated into the Land of Israel after the modern Jewish immigration started in 1882, and both this and their natural growth over the same period of time can be attributed only to the benefits of prosperity and advanced Mediine that the Jews brought over. Had anybody "pointed a gun to their heads", they wouldn't more than doubled their number in that period. The Jewish settling in the country prior to 1947 was all done under the prevailing laws, without any aggression whatsoever towards the Arabs. Sorry for the unpleasant facts, but it were the Arabs who always made the first shots! What do you make of the Hebron massacre of 1929, in which the Arabs killed Jews who had lived there for centuries? These kind of behaviour was what created the problem at the first place. Another term you deliberately use is "racism". Now I can understand well that this is fashionable and it connects you with liberal movements all over the western world, but it futile. Not everything that you don't like is "racism". The Arabs in the 30's demanded of the British Mandate (very violently and with some success) that Jews will not be allowed to continue their immigration to the Land of Israel. I think this was a gross injustice, especilly considering that many of these Jews were in a life threatening situation at the time. Yet I would never say it was a "racist" policy. whereas according to your broadened definition of the term you should call it "racism" and say that the Arabs were again the first to be "racists". I suggest we shall live "racism" out of this purely territorial dispute. After all I think that most of the Jews and most of the Arab speaking population of the Land of Israel belong to the same "race". I can go on analyzing your special vocabulary, but it is the nature of this medium that letters should not be so long. So more next time.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday May 24, 2002 at 10:44 pm
Moshe some points about your mail:
"They (the Jews) lived here long before the Arabs came." So what happened to the poeples that inhabited Palestine before the first Jewish immigration from Egypt?
Did you consider the fact that many of the Jews of Palestine became christians and later Muslims, and that today it is their decendants that compose a good number of those in refugee camps.
"Jews are as "local" in the Land of Israel as Arabs are."
I totally agree that the local Jews are. Those Jews would normally be today part of the Palestinian poeple.
I would have liked to call them Palestinian Jews if it was not offensiove to them. Palestinians had no demand of expelling local Jews they were complaining about the immigration of European Jews. In this they were not unique, as any superficial study of the holocaust shows (St Louis, etc).
Why would they reject those immigrants:
1) Large numbers
2) Very different culture than the locals
3) A large number of those immigrants advocated the creation of a Jewish homeland, they had no intention of settling and merging with the local population
4) A small number of those immigrants advocated very discriminatory practices against the non-jewish locals
The state of the Palestinian poeple today shows the wisdom of their rejection of this massive immigration.
As for the fact that these the Palestinian have not created a national identity as is usual by the European 19th century standards, the answer is so what?
They still have the right to own houses and lands, have children, a culture, enjoy life without being non-citizens having to choose between living in country where they could be massacered today (1947) or moving to a safer place for now to have their children massacred later (1982).
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday May 25, 2002 at 4:04 am
To Shibl Mourad of May 24. It seems you have a very strange view of what a nation is. You try to differantiate between "local" Jews and "European" Jews as if it were two different things. We are one nation and there has been a constant exchange of Jewish people between all the Jews of the diaspora and those who lived in the Land of Israel for centuries. A nation is not defined upon what people from the outside say, but upon its own feeling as a unit. On the other hand, There never was anything like a Palestinian nation until about the 1960's or the 1970's. I agree that some local Arabs opposed the immigration of Jews into Palestine on the grounds you describe, but I say, and this maybe the crucial point of the argument, that they have no right to do so! Will you agree to me saying that because you and Sarah Belleto don't live in Palestine, you are not eligible to take part in the present struggle of the Palestinians, or go to settle in the future Palestinian state? And of course, you still avoid as much as you can the question of the responsibility of the Arabs to their own fate. They are the ones who proved beyond doubt, through constant violence and terrorism, that a common binational state is not a reality. I agree to your saying that "They still have the right to own houses and lands, have children, a culture, enjoy life without being non-citizens". All I say is that by their deeds they lost the right to do it everywhere they want in the Land of Israel. Therefore, there is no other real alternative but a division, and this has come to be the preffered solution of the international community ever since 1947. And to say that the state of the Palestinian today "shows the wisdom of their rejection of this massive immigration". In that case, I think they shold have preferred to be unwise... but who am I to judge. The major thing to understand, in my opinion, is that this is a case, as Amos Oz once said, of a "full justice against a full justice". So if you insist on your version of justice being the only one, you supply ammunition to the hardliners of the other side.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday May 25, 2002 at 11:50 am
I think Mosche touched on the exact root of the problem, which is the duality created bt the Zionists of the Jewish nation.
My understanding of the world is that a Jewish Iraqi is an Iraqi, a Jewish American is an American, etc.
Using a similar argument I do not find it unreasonable to say that a Jewish Palestinian is a "local" while a Jewish russian is an immigrant.
If you frame the conflict in National identities and you say that there are 2 nations one Arab and one Jewish the world becomes a very distorted place.
Can any Arab go to Arabia because they have a national longing to their national birth place? No, "locals", in this case the Saudis, are the ones who are recognised as the owners of this land. Wether or not they claim they are a nation, a province, a tribe does not alter their right to the land they inhabit.
The whole concept of Nation is a very subjective and arbitrary one, that is the result of European geo-political struggles in the 16th - mid 20th century.
I prefer to view the world through the eyes of communities, families and individuals. While I agree that a nation is a valid type of community it is only one type.
Note that the consequences of the Zionist view is the justification of treating Jews as foreigners outside Israel. And it is this justification that is used in Arab countries for the restrictions imposed on Jews (they could at any point be Israeli spies).
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Sunday May 26, 2002 at 2:07 am
To Shibl Mourad of May 25th. This last letters of yours has raised some very interesting points. A full answer to which would take a very long letter that wouldn't fit this medium. I shall therefore make only few remarks: 1. The concept of Nation maybe very subjective and arbitrary as you say, but it remains the centerpiece of international politics. Otherwise, would we have called the most important apparatus the "United Nations"? The lesson being that you cannot avoid inconvenient terms and real world situations that you don't like. 2. Your view of Judaism as a religious entity only (because that's the real meaning of a "Jewish Iraqi is an Iraqi, a Jewish American is an American, etc." is not working in the real world. It is a sad reality, that even in the most advanced societies, a Jew is always reminded that he is not only a citizen with a different religion, but he is also a kind of a foreigner. Discrimination against Jews according to what can only be described as national lines, is sadly the rule of this world and not the exception. Moreover, this has been the case long before Zionism was created, and has its own deep roots whether the state of Israel exists or not. Therefore, zionism did not create dualism for the Jews. On the contrary, it is the only solution for a Jew to avoid dualism in this sad world! It gives him a place where he does not have to lead a dual life. 3. I never claimed there were only 2 nations as you assereted. The situation and definition of nationality in the Arab world is a very complex issue we cannot delve deeply into in here. There is a constant dialectic tension in the Arab world between the existence of many separate ethnic, political, religious etc. groups and the deeply rooted Pan-Arabic idea. On the whole I would say that at the moment the "national" concept have the upper hand even in the Arab world, and therefore there are many Arabian nations, the lately crystalizing Palestinian one is one of the latest of. So at the moment the main significance of the conflict is a national dispute of a territorial nature between two nations. Again, you may not like it, but I think this is the reality. 4. The degree to which the existence of Israel and the Zionist view justifies treating Jews as foreigners outside Israel is only part of a much larger question. The world is full of immigrants and non-immigrant minorities, some of which wish to assimilate in the surrounding society while others wish to keep their identity (be it national, religious, cultural or what have you). It's a complex dialog between these groups and the majorities in those countries that determines the way they are looked upon and treated. It involves both the degree of liberalism and openness in any given society, and the attitude of the minority group itself. In an ideal world, the question wether to live in a certain country as a foreigner or as one who identifies with the "nationality" of this country, should have been a matter of personal decision for a Jew or for any other person belonging to a minority. We both know, however, that this world is far from being ideal.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday May 26, 2002 at 3:16 pm
I agree with Mosche that the realities of the world today include many instances of racism, discrimination and injustice.
What I am trying to discuss is the moral grounds for the actions in this conflict. One interesting way to appreciate the morality of an act is to view it through the "Categorical Imperative" of Kant. The imperative states: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
I tried to apply this principle to the historical act of the creation of Israel, I could not come up with a maxim that could be generalized and that would say in 1920 that it is desirable to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Can anybody construct this maxim?
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Monday May 27, 2002 at 12:19 am
To Shibl of May 26. As much as I understand it, what maybe was not very clear in 1920, became painfully clear in 1933, when Hitler came to power in Germany. Had a Jewish homeland be established by that time, maybe the lives of millions would have been saved. The establishment of of a Jewish homeland, as envisaged by the founders of Zionism, was ment to solve the "Jwish problem". The tragic events that came later showed how right they were and how much this act was morally based. You can argue that it shouldn't have come on the expense of other people, i.e. the local Arab speaking population. But in my humble opinion if you apply moral considerations correctly, then common sense would have dictated that you should choose between the less of two evils. The really unmoral part of the story was the resistance showed by the local Arabs to the immigration of the Jews in the 30's, when these people were clearly in a danger of extermination. The only danger for those Arabs, had they acted morally, was to become a minority in a place where they were a majority before. Now who is to say that this is immoral? Let's take the case of Lebanon for example. The very constitution of Lebanon used to reflect the fact that there was a time that the Christians there were the majority. Now it had to be changed because higher natural growth made Moslems the majority there. Now why is it perceived as more moral that the cultural and political stability of a country can be jeopardized by natural growth but not by immigration? Would you consider a law preventing people whose culture is Indian or Arabic from immigrating to Australia or Canada as moral? So in my humble opinion there must be a line drawn somewhere, and that's the way an abstract moral principle turns into an applicable law. I think that this line is usually drawn at forbidding the use of physical force and violence to achieve either personal or collective aims. And it should give a person or a group the freedom to react with force to violent attacks, i.e. apply the right of self-defence. On top of that, as Jare often reminds us, there are also the laws of war, which by common consent say that even when you apply force justifiably in self-defence, there are moral limits on how much force you apply and who you are targeting.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday May 27, 2002 at 4:27 am
Give some people half the chance and they start calling into question the existence of the State of Israel. The new development is that now even the establishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine is called into question. Once it has been concluded that no laws were broken in either instance, an appeal is made to the categorical imperative. It is absurd that somebody criticizes Jewish immigration into Palestine on the principle "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law", while he himself is supposedly integrating into the Quebec society. We have had a variety of reasons to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like the settlements, the 1967 borders the Sabra and Chatila massacres, but we still seem to come to some people's favourite topic: should the Jews exist in Palestine in the first place? And here we come back to the first fake problem: many of the "settlers" are (or were) "locals"! And it is not what happened in 1920 or 1933 - Likud is at the moment courting the French Jewry to move to Israel, and it is the very anti-Israel policy (or actually the thinly-veiled anti-Semitic policy) that has driven them to this point, and this trend has shown no signs of subsiding after the latest presidential elections (as far as I know, on the contrary).
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Monday May 27, 2002 at 5:31 pm
The reason the creation issue is highly discussed is because I think it contains one of the keys to the settlement.
The other key is the admitting of the pro-Palestians of the equal rights of the Israelis to their land.
I would discuss point 2 with Hamas representatives if they where on this board.
In simple words the Israelis have to accept a historical injustice, the Palestinians have to accpet that history is not the only judge in human affairs. Once the 2 sides are deeply convinced of those 2 points they can reach a more lasting compromise.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Monday May 27, 2002 at 9:29 pm
Given the response of Mosche we can establish the following universal law: "When an ethnic group is threatened it should have the unlimited right to immigrate into the land of its choice independant of the feelings of the current residents".
There are a number of obvious objections to such a law, but a consequence of this law is that those who dislike the presence of a group in any place would apply pressure on this group and given the open immigration universal law that group will find to its advantage to simply go somewhere else. Thus resulting in more discrimination worldwide.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 2:30 am
OK, at least you finally came out with your platform. You must like Jewish immigration to Israel. You just confirmed that "when an ethnic group is threatened it should have the unlimited right to immigrate into the land of its choice independent of the feelings of the current residents". It has two nice things about it: the Jews can come to Palestine no matter what the Palestinians think, and once the Palestinians feel threatened, they can move to any land of their choice. Now it is a universal law. Before, you said you were thinking about countries Syria and Lebanon. Before that, you gave us the impression that it was a universal law to begin with. I guess some countries would have to finance this, as you have said, but as everybody knows, the Palestinians don't even want the US aid to repair the damages they have incurred, because the US supports Israel. They you have this theme of victimization again. Maybe they think that the bigger the victimization, the bigger the land area they will get. I just never thought they were thinking of the whole universe. Given the half-truths that you seem to specialize in, you must be one of those Hamas people you would like to take over this board.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 3:53 am
By the way, about the alleged involvement of Muhammad Atta in a bus bombing in Israel in 1986, there is this explanation. "It was not Muhammad Atta - believed to be the mastermind behind the September attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon - who was convicted of the 1986 bombing and machine gun attack on a bus in Samaria, sentenced to life imprisonment and later released. It was Mahmoud Abed Atta, a Palestinian associated with the Abu Nidal terror organization. They are not the same person. According to the Jerusalem Post, Mahmoud Abed Atta fled to Venezuela after the bus attack but was deported to the U.S. and eventually (in 1990) extradited to Israel, where he was tried and sentenced for his crime. His subsequent release from prison, confirmed by the Israeli Justice Ministry, had nothing to do with the Oslo Accord or intervention by either the Reagan or the Clinton administration." http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blatta.htm . But as the Italians say, si non è vero, è ben trovato...
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 11:38 am
Jari, I think my writing is not very clear. Let me try again.
1) I am trying to explore the morality of the Jewish immigration to Israel 1920-1945.
2) I suggested to use the categorical imperative, to get a fresh prespective.
3) Mosche suggested "Had a Jewish homeland be established by that time, maybe the lives of millions would have been saved" as a moral ground for the immigration. (I hope I am not misrepresenting him)
4) I proposed the universal law (that you described as "My Platform") that would incompass his idea without reference to Jews or Hitler.
5) I proposed that such a law is unworkable, for similar reasons to the ones you proposed.
What is very telling (about both sides) is that once we took the names out of the positions, you mistook the pro-israeli argument as a pro-palestinian one and you vehemently charged that it is unreasonable and totally gaga.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 12:05 pm
"By the way, about the alleged involvement of Muhammad Atta .....si non è vero, è ben trovato" or alternatively: "Non fare il passo piu lungo della gamba."
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 12:54 pm
Thanks. Now I know it is gaga. "When an ethnic group is threatened it should have the unlimited right to immigrate into the land of its choice independent of the feelings of the current residents." The ethnic group, in this case the Jews, has the unlimited right to immigrate into "the land of its choice", Palestine, later the Jewish state. So equally, the Palestinian people has the unlimited right to move immigrate into the "land of its choice"? Now what would that "land of its choice" be? Remember, we are talking about a group, not individuals. If Palestine is the land the Jews have "chosen", what would the land of the Palestinians be? I think it would be called the Palestinian state. Thank you, you have been very helpful. That again shows that "Non fare il passo piu lungo della gamba". But what can we expect from somebody who is so eager to talk with Hamas on the Internet?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 12:59 pm
To Shibl of May 28. Of course you misrepresent me. I have already given you many reasons that justify the Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel. You prefered to concentrate on those reasons you think you can refute, although not so successfully in my humble opinion. Above all, when you deal with history, you should always judge it in the context of times it was staged, and not try to generalize into some abstract rules. Had we agree to your interpretation of absolute morality, then the first thing you should have done is to give your house to the first Native American you find and go back to???? The world of 1882-1939 was very different from the world of today. And the Jewish immigrstion into Israel at that time was staged in a more moral way than any other. And who told you that Jewish immigration was not welcome at the time? Judging at the context of the period, it was done legally, according to the rules of the then sovereigns (first the Ottomans, then the British). Settlement was only on legally purchased land, and it brought with it prosperity and progress. Moreover, it was not a colonial expansion into a new land, but a return to an historical motherland where relatives of the same Jews has lived all along. Many of the local inhabitants welcomed this immigration, and many other neighbouring Arabs immigrated themselves into it at the same time because of the opportunities it presented. I know you cannot accept all these arguments, because all your trying to justify the unjustifiable, that is Arab murderous behavoiour from 1929 (the first massacre in Hebron) to this very day, lies upon the assumption that a great unjustice was done to these Arabs. I thought I have shown more than once that this is utterly untrue, so that the first of your demands cannot be accepted. On the contrary, a chance for a real solution can come only when the Arabs admit that the Israeli claim in this land is at least as justified as theirs. Of course I demand the same fron the right wingers on our side, who maintains that this is only our land and the Arabs has no rights here whatsoever. Unless we both agree that it is a case of equal justices, I see no real chance of a stable solution.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 3:48 pm
Ok, Arbs and Jews are Semites, moreover closest blod relatives, main diference is that of religion, and the fact that Israelis have recognised Nation State, and the Palestinians do not. If Israelis deserve recognition of National State the Isarael, so do Palestinians. Occupation be it by the Ottomans, Romans, Btrits of Israelis it is still ocupation. The mandates issue should have been resolved, long time ago. In reality after the end of WWI, and the fall of the Ottomans, creation of Israel as well as Palestine should have been considered as a legitimate solution towards the existing problems of the "Eastern Question". The League of Nations failed to do so. Todays problems are continutity, and must be resolved to benefit of both, Israelis and Palestinins, than, and only than, there be pease between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel must stop behaving as domminat power of the region, and occupaing power of Palestinina lands.
Carla Berg
Austria - Wednesday May 29, 2002 at 3:00 am
The reason we call the West Bank and Gaza the "Occupied Territories" is that the West Bank was occupied by Jordania and Gaza by Egypt. These two countries should be added to the "occupation be it by..." list. And it is only due to this occupation that the former mandate appears partitioned, even if I doubt very much if it ever was partitioned legally. What you have is an optical illusion. What distinguishes the Jordanian and Egyptian occupation from the rest was its military character (it was military occupation), and if you argue by the Kellogg-Briand Pact, the de facto partitioning of the former mandate was illegal. The only touch of respectability to the partitioning comes from resolution 242, which was adopted after the 1967 war. So I consider it futile to discuss whether the legitimate border is the 1947 partition plan or the 1949 armistice line. The former was a "plan" and the latter was the result of an illegal military occupation (illegal at least in terms of the Kellogg-Briand Pact). Because it was illegal, it is misplace nostalgia to reinstate the borders. If resolution 242 were interpreted as demanding withdrawal from "all" the territories (which it doesn't state), Israel would be only 9 miles wide at its most vulnerable point. I again refer to the illuminating article in the Jewish World Review at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.html . Moshe made a point that I have been longing to hear a long time: the original settlements were purchased legally. As to the West Bank "settlements", please refer to that article again: "Despite claims that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the obstacle to peace, Jews lived there for centuries before being massacred or driven out by invading Arab armies in 1948-49. And contrary to common misperceptions, Israeli settlements-which constitute less than two percent of the territories-almost never displace Palestinians." According to this explanation, the West Bank "settlements" belong to the "locals", which was the concept used in this discussion a while ago.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Wednesday May 29, 2002 at 3:54 am
The West Bank and Gaza resulted from the "solutions endorsed with the multilateral agreements in Paris on August 27.1928, following creation of Mandates from the territories of the former Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. The Pact of Paris is also known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It is under the Kellog-Briand Pact that, "Palestine" was partitioned to the satisfaction of the "Great Powers" of the WWI. Moreover, not only did the "Palestine" became "Mandate" other problematic issue susch as Kurds were shafted to the new Turkish state. It was a political solution to the "EASTERN QUESTION" suitable at that paricular time of histrory. Decolonization after the WWII, provided for creation of "New States", yes it also provided for creation of the State of Israel, however, state of Israel was created from the "Palestine" that was mandated land, the problem is that the "Palestinian State" was not created at the same time. Israel could not make claims on the land beyond the legaly recognized borders, if Israel wish is to challange existing borders, than it should file its claim with the International Court of Justice, as other states have done. Israel could not legally change its borders with settlements or occupation of territories beyond legally recognised borders. As Democracy Israel should serve as an example of enforcement of International Law.
Carla Berg
Austria - Wednesday May 29, 2002 at 2:22 pm
To Carla Berg of May 29. You make things too easy for yourself by skiping the unpleasant facts. It is not a mere coincidence that a Palestinian state was not created at the same time with Israel. It so happened because the Arabs (both local and the neighbouring Arab countries) did not accept the resolution of the UN to divide the country, choosing instead to attack the Jews without delay, without trying to talk things over, with the expressed aim to "throw them into the sea". A similar scenario repeated itself in 1967, when the Arabs chose again to try and eliminate Israel. The results of these wars are the reason of the present control of Israel over the occupied territories. You also avoid the fact that immediately after the 1967 war, Israel offered to give back almost all the newly conquered territory in exchange for peace. The Arab world reply came at the Hartum summit of 1968 as "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiation with Iarael". So what did you expect Israel to do? Israel showed, with the 1979 peace pact with Egypt, that it is ready to give up on a lot of territory in exchange for peace, but other Arab nations, and the Palestinians in particular, are not ready to make a reasonable peace. This has been brought to light so painfully in the Camp David summit of July 2000, when Arafat did not even bother to put a counter proposal to the generous offer made by Barak. I can understand a demand from Israel to give back land in exchange for peace, but if you are not ready to give that peace, how can you justify the demand to get the land?
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 30, 2002 at 3:14 am
We shouldn't pin our hopes on the UN resolution 242 either. Its message is expressed in the second consideration where it confirms "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security". This can only be a short-term resolution, because before long people would apply the same "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" to the Arab invasion in 1948. What would be the idea in taking by war what you were given on a UN plate? As Moshe stated, their intention was to drive the Jews to the sea (and this is well-recorded). Once you reward the Palestinians with the territory that was acquired in the joint offensive of Jordania and Egypt, you only give your blessing to the original annihilation plan. And I don't know what the internationally recognized borders would be even in principle (notwithstanding the business of delimitation), because Israel has that border in common with some states that don't recognize the Israeli state. So even you go back to the basics, is "acquisition of territory by war" really applicable to the 1967 conquest? Israel was only reinforcing its grip on the unpartitioned mandate, whose inviolability the neighbour states has infringed on. Remember, you can argue where the line should run inside the former mandate, but what nobody has seriously supposed is that any new state should reach beyond the formet mandate. That is why it was so easy for Israel to withdraw from Sinai. Why should it be any more difficult to deny that "Palestinian territories" are an "ad hoc" solution based on the illegal military conquest by Egypt and Jordania from their territory to the territory of the former (and unpartitioned) mandate?
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday May 30, 2002 at 9:01 am
"But what can we expect from somebody who is so eager to talk with Hamas on the Internet?"
Hummm, very jarring remark!
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday May 30, 2002 at 12:55 pm
Regarding the notion of "victimization", if it were not so sad, it would actually be funny...no one knows how to capitalize on being "victims" better than the Jews... For over 60 years, they have used their "victim" status to rationalize their right to statehood. Since there are Jews scattered throughout the world, why choose Israel as a homeland? Why choose a land that is surrounded on all sides by Arabs and that needs the US backing to exist? Why not exercise their Jewish faith in the synaagoues throughout the world? Can anyone imagine Catholics deciding that they have a homeland? Or, for that matter, Muslims having a homeland? Jewish is a religious faith; to mix it with politics results in absolute racism...in Israel, this is precisely what has happened. By virtue of not being Jews (religious), the rest of the population has been relegated to second class citizenship or refugee camps. This is NOT acceptable!!! So, if offense was taken to the reference to Hamas, let it also fall on me. While I once believed that a Jewish and Arab state could exist side by side and waited with hope for this after Oslo, I have concluded that this will not happen in my lifetime. So...if the nation of Israel is to continue with the repression of Arabs and their living generation after generation in hopeless degradation and in refugee camps, I say bring on Hamas.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Thursday May 30, 2002 at 4:13 pm
to sarah belleto of May 30. I can hardly believe we have to go through this all over again. Almost none of your assertions in this letter is right: 1) The jews are very different from Muslims or Catholics by being a nation and not only a group of people who practice the same religion. We have been a nation for more than 3000 years, probably longer than any other nation on earth. So with all due respect, who are you to come and tell us now that we are not a nation? 2)"why choose Israel as a homeland?" you ask as if it was some unheard of thing. I shall tell you why: a) Because this is the place our nation was born. b) Because this is the land we ruled independently for almost 1000 years. c) Because Jews has never stopped living in this country for 3000 years. d) Because the Jews of the diaspora has been praying to return to this land and saw it as their homeland for 2000 years. e) Because the right of the Jews for a homeland in this land has been recognized by a majoriy of the international community ever since the Balfour declaration of 2.11.1917. Long before the holocaust turned us into "victims". 3) Although we are very thankful for the great assistance given to us over the years by America, it is not true that we need America backing to exist. Not more so than Europe needed America to detter the Russians all through the cold war. Leave us and our enemies without any external help to either side, and I think we have shown that we can deal with them and exist very well. The great and important American help amounts only to 1-2% of the GDP of Israel. 4) The Arabs who are Israeli citizen are not second class and enjoys a better standard of living, more human rights, and more freedom of speach than all other Arabs have in their own countries. The Palestinians who are in the refugee camps are there, because they were left to rot there by their generous Arab brothers, who could easily take care of them with all the richness of the Arab world. May I remind you that at the same time a much smaller and poorer Israel took care of a greater number of Jewish refugees from the Arab countries, none of which were left in camps within 6-7 years of their arrival to Israel. And that's because we don't trade in our people suffering as the Arabs do. 5) And above all, the existence of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, side by side is still a very distinct possibility which I believe in. We have four Arab countries as neighbours, and with two of them we already have a peace pact. We can easily live with a fifth Arab neighbour. But if they keep declining every offer made to them and keep insisting on their version of the truth as being the only one, then and only then it will take more than a lifetime. The ball is in the Palestinian court. Arafat could have a Palestinian state already, but chose no to, because he is indifferent to the suffering and the needs of his own people, and feels commited only to the "Palestinian cause". With this kind of leadership, the poor Palestinians are doomed for suffering for a very long time to come. Just remember that this suffering is mainly self-inflicted (I did not invent this, it was said by Pres. Bush), and if you say "bring on Hams", you are sentencing your kin to more suffering from a comfortable observation point in California!
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday May 30, 2002 at 11:40 pm
Moshe: Without the US assistance, Israel would NOT exist; you have to be joking that you could exist without it.... As for the biblical claim to a land, sorry but that is "religious"...do you realize that there are many people throughout the world who do not believe in the bible. As for whatever George Bush has to say, that is absolutely insignficant to me. He is by far the most ineffective leader and I have no respect for him. Israel has seized on 9/11 to convince the world that they have lived under this type of threat forever. The analogy fails, however, in most people's thinking. The US is quite unique in buying into the guilt thing. Europe is much more wise and sophisticated and there is much understanding of what the Israelis are doing. As for condemning my kin to destruction, my kin have not had a home for 54 years. So, yes, from my home in CA, i say "Bring on Hamas" I do not condone the death of any innocent but the Palestinians have nothing left....their children are killed on a daily basis and the media does not cover it. As for history, don't think you have the edge on it because if your claim is in the Bible...well, I won't go there.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Friday May 31, 2002 at 3:03 am
I doubt very much if the former mandate can be divided. The trouble is not so much the Israelis but the Palestinians. It seems they would rather settle for some kind of "anomalous" status of the whole former mandate than divide it. No matter how much you talk to them (and I think Moshe has done his best), they won't ever recognize the Israeli authority either on the Israeli territory or on the so-called occupied territories. And what is authority? Legitimate use of force? It is this "legitimate" part that is lacking in the Palestinians eyes, so the Israelis have no authority. How do they interpret the use of force that the Israelis feel is legitimate? For lack of a better term, it is terrorism. How do you respond to terrorism? By terrorism. So as long as the State of Israel is not recognized, the terrorism will continue. You can blame this or that offensive of the Israeli Defence Force or Police, but it is the Palestinian interpretation that differs from the rest of ours. The inevitable blemish in this Palestinian reasoning is that you have to call Israeli violence "state terrorism". So it is terrorism because it is legitimate, Israel not being a legitimate state, but it is a state for the purpose of classifying this special sort of terrorism. No, I have serious doubts whether the two states can coexist, although one has to hope as Moshe does. I think it is more accurate to say that the battle is now for the control of the whole former mandate.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday May 31, 2002 at 8:49 am
To sarah belleto of May 30. I don't know what to think. Did you read my letter at all and decide to ignore any part you did not like, or probably you had no patience to read it or trying tounderstand it. I thought I gave you much more to base our claim to this land than the biblical story and none of it was "religious", yet you chose to speak only about the bible. There is a continuous story of 3000 years here, starting at biblical times, but going on for all the time since. Please tell me, what makes your claim to this land stronger than ours? You never owned all the land. You never had a state here. More than half of you are descendants of people who came in the last century. You did not accept the resolution of the international community to divide the land, and you started every cycle of violence since 1929. But I say that now you are a nation and deserve to be recognized as much as we do, and therefore I suggest that the solution should be a compromise (ever heard about this word?) of a division of the land. Now you speak about your kin who had no home for 54 years, and you just forget to say that it is their own (or rather their leadership and their Arab brothers) fault. There were about 100 million refugees in the world after WW2, but you are the only group who chose deliberately to stay in refugee camps so as not to extinguish the fire of hatred and war. You turned down all the offers to compromise and make peace. You started the new cycle of violence in Sept. 2000 just after receiving the most generous offer ever and still you have the nerve to speak about "children that are killed on a daily basis", which is completely untrue (It even came to light at last that you killed the poor Muhamed Abu Durra). Sorry Sarah, but you remind me of the guy who killed his parents and ask for the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday May 31, 2002 at 3:35 pm
Moshe, was Jesus born to Jewish parents???
Carla Berg
Austria - Friday May 31, 2002 at 4:26 pm
To Carla Berg of May 31. Its a strange situation I find myself in. You asked me a question directly, so I probably should do my best to answer, even if only to try to be polite. On the other hand, being an atheist and a jew, I don't think I am qualified to give a good answer to a queation which is clearly theological and very Christian in nature. I also assume that you ment something relevant to a discussion of the Middle East problem by asking me this question (this is the aim of this forum, if I remember correctly), but for the life of me I cannot see the connection. Nevertheless let's try, and I hope I do not hurt any feelings by my answer. According to Christiam tradition, Jesus was born to a Jewish mother (by the way, that would qualify him as a Jew by Jewish orthodox standards which I do not share). The question of the father identity is hmmmmm... somewhat more complicated. In any way, Saint Peter, as the leader among Jesus disciples, made a strategic decision to stop insisting on carrying Jesus' word to the stubborn Jews and concentrate on the gentiles instead. So ever since that decision we Jews are going our separate way from the Christians. Now I don't know if there is any relevant lesson that can be learned from this story, but if there is please tell me what it is...
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 01, 2002 at 12:28 am
Moshe: While I don't quite understand the relevance of Carla's question on this board, I do think it can be answered even by an atheist. I think we can all agree that Jesus was at the least a historical figure. As you noted, being born by a Jewish mother would make him Jewish. As for the paternity, let's keep it simple...let's assume that Joseph was the father. Thus, he was in fact a Jew. Maybe Carla's question is about whether Jesus would be considered an Israeli citizen... Must say that I agree with you that the question is a bit strange. I find it interesting that you call yourself an atheist; it goes to show that we all make some assumptions and that sometimes we are wrong about each other. As for me, under the rules of Judaism, I would be Jewish because my grandfather (on my mother's side) was an Austrian Jew. By Islamic law, I would be a Moslem because my father was Islamic. As a fact, i was raised a Catholic and today I have no religious affiliation but rather find my beliefs to be more universal and spiritual.
sarah belletto
san rafael
ca, USA - Saturday June 01, 2002 at 1:42 pm
My question is a simple one, it plays enormous role in Israel-Palestinian politics headed by current government.Moreover, Israeli people have been nislead, that treating those "Arabs" as animals it would bring them pease. So, it was in the past that the Romans treated all their "enemies as animals" initially also Jesus. My question relates to the fact that religion is used as a political tool totay, as it was used in the distant and not so distant past. Anti Semites ( that includes ALL SEMITES)are more than hapy to use religion divide, Jew, Palestinian, yet there are Israeli citizens that are not by dot practice Judism, as well as Palestinians that are mot MUSLEMS. What about CHRISTIAN religion blaming Jesw for the death of Christ. POLITICS today does nor differ fron the politics of 2000 or 5000 yeasr ago, that is my point. My mother was Jew.
Carla Berg
Austria - Saturday June 01, 2002 at 3:35 pm
To Carla Berg of June 01. Sorry Carla, but as far as I know, Most Israelis do not wish to treat Arabs, or anyone else, as animals. The majority of the Jews in Israel are not religious and the conflict for them is a simple national territorial dispute, like many others in this sad world. The religious issue plays a secondary role in this conflict, although it has been dragged into it by fundamentalists on both sides. It is unfortunate, of course, that religion is used as political tool as you so correctly observed, because it tends to make people less inclined to compromise. And as I said meny times before, it will be impossible to solve this conflict without the will to compromise on both sides.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 01, 2002 at 5:06 pm
Sorry, to say but blandfolding people, in addition to handcuffing them is not HUMAN treatment even of enemies. Why do Israely military blindfold their captives?? Territory is in question, however, territory that belong to sone one could not be annexed by military actions. Unfortunately it is also question of water. As Semites, both Jews and Arabs, (Palestinians in particular) must respect each others rights and share the land of their predessesors, regardless of religious divide. It is inevitable that a Palestinian State would be formed at some point, the sunner the bether.Yes I agree, that both side must compromise, but in current political situation question is not pease is pease, but grab for land of the oportunistic Israeli government.Israeli government must pull back to its legally recognised lines of control in order to begin a peasfull life for both, Israelis and Palestinians. That most Isralis would like to live in pease is reality, but most Palestinians also like to live in pease and have control of their lives, their own State to call it their homeland, they deservet as much as Israelis do. That is a point that must be shared by the people of Israel regardless of the current politics.
Carla Berg
Austria - Saturday June 01, 2002 at 10:43 pm
Dear debaters, Your discussions, although both captivating and intellectually stimulating, do little to advance the purpose for which the debate was convened. When there is so much difference of opinion about events which took place only a few weeks ago, (eg. at Jenin) how can we, even with the most erudite debate, hope to gain consensus on a history from which we are separated by decades, centuries or millennia. The time for looking backward is over and the focus has to be to move forward. This aim will not be advanced by arguments about Israel's right to exist. The simple fact is that Israel exists and, as much as some would wish it were not so, the Israelis will not oblige them by disappearing. It has to be acknowledged by those on both sides of this debate that the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis is not one between right and wrong but one of between two rights. The effort therefore should be directed to the reconciliation of these rights rather than to arguments about the history of the world. We have to leave behind our prejudices and partisan positions and realise that it is in the best interest of Palestinians and Israelis that a two-people two-state solution be found as this is the only equitable position which delivers to both sides a superior position to the one available without this approach. The fine details of lines on maps have to be negotiated and whether the Palestinians end up with 90% or 97% of the West Bank and Gaza is really not the critical issue to either Israelis or Palestinians as the worst possible outcome is a continuation of the current situation where the Palestinians have a 0% state and killings on both sides continue. It must be remembered that mortal enemies over many centuries like France and Germany, 60 years after their most bitter war, have no real borders between them and they share a common currency. The same could happen in the Middle East given good leadership, good judgement and goodwill. Don't waste time rehashing opposing views of history and spend more time discussing your visions of a brighter future and means for achieving this outcome. Paul Spira Sydney, Australia
Paul Spira
Sydney
Australia - Monday June 03, 2002 at 3:15 am
Paul, the recognition of the Israeli state is the problem, and putting it forward as your premise doesn't serve your wish to be non-partisan. So: the recognition of Israel is what divides the opinions, basically. Unless the state has been recognized, all the solutions can be only band-aids, which stay in place as long as some third party keeps watching. And terrorism will continue, because the use of force by an unrecognized state will be responded to by the use of force by another unrecognized "state". As far as Israel's human rights record is concerned, which was discussed earlier, let me point out that the neighbouring Arab states, if they want to be in a position to criticize anybody else's human rights records, have the obligation to accept refugees to their territory until their applications have been handled, which would take years. They have the obligation not to turn the refugees back in the meantime (non-refoulement). So if anyone really thinks that the Palestinians are bona fide refugees, there is solace. No-one would argue that Israel is not a safe place (whose fault it is, is another matter). With all the money that the neighbouring and the not-so-neighbouring states use to finance the suicide bombings, the "refugee" problem would have been solved long ago.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Thursday June 06, 2002 at 11:39 am
"With all the money that the neighbouring and the not-so-neighbouring states use to finance the suicide bombings, the "refugee" problem would have been solved long ago."
I think you will find that the suicide bombing budget in Arab ministries is rather less than you expect. Suicide bombers base is built by racist policies where poeple are made to feel they need to kill and die to achieve what most of us consider minimum human living conditions. A very small amount of financing is necessary to trigger this rage into actual operations.
However to paraphrase you: "With all the money that the United States use to finance the israeli army and racist state, the "refugee" problem would have been solved long ago."
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday June 06, 2002 at 12:57 pm
To Shibl Mourad of June 06. I somehow thought we were over this part before. It is fashionable to call everything "racist" and I can spot this tendency also with local Arab leadership. They, and maybe you, somehow believe that this connects them with liberal circles in the west. But it has no substance. We are dealing here with a simple territorial dispute between two nations. There is nothing in either Israeli law or Israeli behaviour which is "racist". There is no discrination against Arabs or any other group which is based on identity alone. There are somw racists in Israel, as there are in almost any country I can think of, but Israel as a country cannot be called racist without twisting the meaning of the word. Israel is a state in a situation of war, and therefore is taking some harsh measures in its fight. But if you examine objectively any other similar conflict in the world, you will find that all other nations, the US included, are much less considerate in whatever concerns civilian casualties for instance. I think you are also wrong about the suicide bombing issue. The situation of the Palestinians 10 years ago was politically much worse than now. After all, there was no Palestinian authority then, and they all lived under Israeli rule, but there were no suicide bombings then. No, the reason suicide bombings are used more now is because they are both fashionable in the last 7 years or so in the Muslim world (and the 11.9 attacks are no exception) and deemed effective by the people who perpetrate them. Remember that every suicide bomber is only the last part of a chain of at least 10 people, some of whom are quite well off and take no exceptional personal risks. Moreover, these people know that each of these bombings will bring a lot of additional suffering to their own kin, but they keep on because they think the bombings are doing the work for them. I think they are wrong, and I refer you to the case of the Japanese Kamikaze, who also nourished the idea of suicide attacks as a military solution. The end result will probably be a justification for even harsher measures to be taken, just as the case was in WW2. There is one thing which is maybe correct, though, the living conditions of most Palestinians deteriorated ever since they began to live under the Palestinian authority (the best estimation I know of speaks about 30% decrease in the standard of living from 1994 to 2000, before the present cycle of violence began). The reason being the unbelievable corruption and ineffenciency of the Authority. It is a small wonder, then, that Arafat did his best to direct the rage of his people against the "external enemy". It's the oldest trick in the book of dictators.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 06, 2002 at 2:21 pm
The spiritual and factual driving force in Israel is to be the "Jewish Homeland".
Since Jewishness is established by examination of blood lines, and can not be acquired (unlike Frenchness, Budhism, etc), Israel is a racist entity.
I think a more honest line of defense is that Israel is racist but that does not make it evil.
Or that it is accidentaly racist, by that I mean that the racism is simply a left over of old beleifs that are kept out of respect of tradition rather than real beleif that one race is fundamentally different from another.
A third defence is that Israel is racist in the same way that positive discrimination is: the Jewish race have suffered so much negative racism in the past that a positive discrimination is required to correct past wrong and put the Jews on an equal footing as other groups.
But refusing the argument outright is naive or hypocritical in my opinion.
The real question is not whether Israel is racist but whether its racism is evil.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday June 06, 2002 at 2:35 pm
Another misconception propagated throughout, taking from the American tradition of personalizing conflicts is linking the terror to Arafat.
Any neutral observer will have to agree that even if Arafat is not Ghandi or Nelson Madella. He is really a moderate in the Palestinian political spectrum. I do not have exact numbers but I suspect that he would fall in the 25% most moderate Palestinians.
Of course this does not make him right, as a leader is supposed to lead, especially at a time so important in the history of his poeple.
But when poeple say the Arafat is a terrorist they should be saying that 75% of Palestinians are terrorists at heart.
And then ask why?
1) Are they inherently inferior and evil?
2) Is it the state propaganda?
3) Is it the education system?
4) Is it their living standards?
5) Their religion?
6) The fact that they have been deprived of basic human rights? Including right to property.
7) We don't care let's nuke them all, and with them all the muslims and arabs (and all thrid world countries, and the liberals at home, and the French).
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday June 07, 2002 at 4:26 am
Did the Islamic Jihad perpertrate the latest suicide bombing to protest against the living conditions in Palestine? No, they did it to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the beginning of the 1967 war. This kind of attacks will go on until we can erase the 1967 war and other stuff from history using some kind of time-machine. The other option, the easier one, is to erase the Islamic Jihad. Arafat may be a moderate by Palestinian standards. However, he was the one who invited Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to the government, and they resigned. Maybe what you meant was that Arafat isn't the rightful leader, because he belongs to the meagre moderate 25% of the Palestinians. Why else would you give us some absolute percentages, while your criterion ("moderate") is a purely relative concept? Maybe Arafat knows his support is shrinking and it may be thanks to his very moderateness that the power shifts to Hamas. But then again, even Hamas is moderate when compared to the west. It is typical that once one points out that the neighbouring Arab states should do something, you get a tirade of "the US did this in ... and Britain did that in ..." This is one of the reasons the interviews with Arab leaders are so annoying. Talking of western powers, Germany has done more than its share to get the Palestinian secret services (and the suicide bombings) going according to the fresh report from Deutsche Welle at http://dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_571000,00.html . Since you like reminding us of the German past, isn't it cute how the bonds between the Arabs and Germans during WW II immediately come to mind? On the other hand, it gets tiring to hear how the US keeps arming Israel (and always has done so), the assumption being that once the arms supplies stop the Palestinian issue would somehow be solved without the Palestinians themselves doing anything. The US isn't the only arms supplier in the world. In the 1948 war Israel could only get its arms from Czechoslovakia! http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0195/9501036.htm . Since you seem to have some work to do, maybe you should try answering those seven questions you put instead of letting others do the thinking. Why is it that the suicide bombings are used also in Kashmir? What is the connection? See http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0606/p01s03-uspo.html . And you are mixing things pretty badly. Nuking isn't an issue in Israel, but it is in Kashmir. Projecting things to the US so incoherently as you do can be dangerous. If you want to solve a problem, first find the problem.
Jari Nousiainen
Finland - Friday June 07, 2002 at 10:09 am
I agree with Jari that finding the problem is the first step.
Here is the problem in my humble opinion:
Two groups beleive in their absolute right to own a piece of land. One for religious, racial, emotional and pseudo-historical reasons. The other because they lived in it.
Group one managed to establish a powerful presence in this land, while group two was scattered into refugee camps.
Both groups have framed the conflict as a group conflict and have forgotten basic human rights.
So group one finds it very moral to dispatch poeple from their home and appropriate their properties, it does not recognise its behaviour and even 'raison d'etre' as analogus to the behaviour of those who persecuted them for centuries (more on my ripples of evil theory in another mail)
Group two extremists falls into a similar contradiction wherby they wants to deny group one from the right to live in the land they inherited from their fathers (even though not from their grandfather :)
My proposed contribution (and not solution) is to review all the actions and positions from an individual perspective rather than from a national one.
PS if you find the email confusing substitute G1 for Jewish Israelis and G2 Arab Palestinians.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday June 07, 2002 at 10:12 am
PS2 The nuke comment was a joke. Sadly after reflection it does seem so funny :(
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday June 07, 2002 at 4:59 pm
To all recent Shibl letters. In my humble opinion Shibl has a problem dealing with the definitions of concepts and words. I cannot explain it in detail, as this medium is not fit for too long letters (and mine tend to be too long, mea culpa) but I shall try some very few examples: 1. "Racism" is defined in the dictionary "1) a belief that human races have distinctive make-ups that determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2) a policy of enforcing such asserted right. 3) a system of government and society based upon it." As I said before, the complete equality under law of the minorities in Israel shows clearly that Israel is not practicing racism in any kind or form, if we keep to the correct definition of racism we just cited. I think that Shibl completely confuses the terms "racism" and "nationalism". I understand how important is for him to try to convince that Israel is "racist" and therefore he repeats it every so often, but it does not make it true. The reason that the Palestinian population has no full rights is not based on racism but on the simple fact that it is a nation whose former rulers lost the territory in war and a peace pact was not signed yet. It is exactly the situation the Germans and the Japanese were in between about 1945 to the early 50's, when they lived under occupation until the peace treaties were signed. And the reason a peace treaty has not been signed yet is mainly their own fault as we have already discussed so many times in former letters. 2. It is also completely wrong to assume that belonging to the Jewish nation is based on blood lines as Shibl wrote, and the case of the Ethiopean Jews easily proves it. In contrary to another of Shibl's statements, it is possible to convert into a Jew and not much different from becoming a Frenchman. It is less popular, of course, because becoming a Jew means first of all that you are ready to share the Jewish destiny, which was, and still is, more of a chalenge than sharing most other destinies. 3. Let's take now the case of "terrorism". Sorry, Shibl, but a terrorist is not defined upon whether his stand is moderate or extreme, but upon his actions. The actions that defined a terrorist are the killing and wounding of innocent civilians to further one's political aims by terrorizing a certain population. It does not matter if these aims are "moderate" or not, if you practice these ACTIONS, then you are a terrorist. According to this simple definition, that most of the world agree upon, Arafat, who ordered the killing of many civilian Israelis (and some people of other nationalities) has been a terrorist through most of his career, and went back to being a terrorist in the last 20 months or so. 4. And of course, Shibl's whole description of history of groups one and two in his last letter has very little connection to the actual historical facts, but we have been through this many times before, so I would not repeat the whole argument again. It is enough if the objective reader will examine for himself the question who started every cycle of violence in this conflict, and will find out it was the Arab side in 1929, in 1939, in 1947, in 1954-6, in 1967, in 1973 etc, etc. And last, the suggestion that we can review this matter from an individual perspective is so irrelelvant to the way groups of people actually act, as to be non helpfull at all. I think that Shibl does his best to make this conflict something else from what it really is, which is a simple national territorial dispute between two nations, the like of which the world has seen very many times before, and is seeing today in Kashmir, Kosovo, etc. the same way it sees it in Israel.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday June 07, 2002 at 5:39 pm
In response to Mosche.
1) I agree that if Judaism freely accepted converts Zionism is not racist.
I acknowledge that if this this was indeed a fact that I was misinformed and I would then fully apologize to all Zionists for misjudging their views.
2) The fact that some Jews are black, does not imply that there is no racist tendency, just that it is not the usual black/white issue. Remember that even in South Africa there was special courts to decide on your race and they looked at more than your color.
3) Arafat (and I am not a defender of him) was a terrorist and never denied being one. He excersised terror tactics to achieve a national goal, as did Shamir, Sharon, Begin, IRA. So basically I agree with you. He is claiming that he abandoned the terror approach, I am not sure whether he did or not.
4) You do not like my version of history, and that is fine. You claim that the problem was always started by the Arab side. You forget that Jews have lived in relative peace in the region for a long time. Mosche even mentions that the initial wave of immigration was welcomed by the local arabs as it improved their living conditions. I suspect that there was then a change in the parameters that caused this relatively blissful state of affairs to turn into bitter hatred. I suspect that it was the disproportionate immigration rates combined with the colonial attitude of the immigrants "Jewish Homeland, etc". The the Palestian version of who started is "I was sitting in my land being occupied by the turks and then brits and basically minding my own business, when a bunch of religious fanatics started showing up all over and claiming that god gave them this land, ....". Even though it is in my opinion irrelevant.
"And last, the suggestion that we can review this matter from an individual perspective is so irrelelvant to the way groups of people actually act, as to be non helpfull at all"
I agree, sadly, but I still think it is a very major consideration that is overlooked. To paraphrase that most famous of Jews "Nationalism was made for man and not man for nationalism"
Shibl Mouard
Canada - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 5:44 am
Moshe, your statement of "loosing the war" do you mena 1967 War? If so, you are right in one aspect, and that is that after that War Palestinians responded with violence, due to ILIGAL OCCUPATION. In recent history that War created manny problen of today. Think about it. That War was WAR OF AGGRESSION, Israel is as yet to complay with the UN resolution and withdrow from ILLIGALLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.
Carla Berg
Austria - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 11:22 am
To Carla Berg of June 8th. What I ment included both the 1948 and the 1967 wars. But this is not the important issue. Some of your assertions are, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect. Palestinian violent behaviour is not something that started after the 1967 war. It started way before, with the first "big" event being the massacre of the Hebron Jews in 1929. The Fatah movement itself was established by Yasser Arafat in late 1964 and carried its first terrorist attack against (the then smaller) Israel in 1.1.1965. You should also go back to the history books and learn that 1967 was indeed a "war of aggression", but it was Arab aggression against Israel that sparked it. It was Nasser who closed the straits of Tiran in 23.5.1967, thereby causing the war. And it was Hussain who joined in and shelled the Jewish part of Jerusalem in 5.6.1967, despite being warned by Israel to stay out. An act that brought about the conquering of the West Bank by the IDF. You also try to argument, time and again, that the Israeli settlements in the territories are "illegal". Although I am all for the evacuation of these settlements by Israel, I don't think the legality issue is so clear cut. Israel took great care to base all these settlements on government owned land or on land acquired legally from Arab land merchants. And one can easily argue that Israel is now the legal government in these territories and the heir to the right held before by the governments of the Ottomans, the Brits and the Jordanoans, thus the settlemets are quite legal (which doesn't make them just, anyway). It is not on legality, but on much more general moral and practical considerations that I think Israel should give back a major part of the territories taken in 1967, and dismantle most of the settlements. On the other hand, don't you agree that the other side should play his part, and agree to sign a sensible peace treaty according to the same UN resolution (UNSC 242) you are speaking about? Let me remind you that this same resolution also state "the right of Israel to exist within safe and recognized borders". It also calls only for "withdrawal from territories..." and not "withdrawal from all the territories", which means the final borders should be decided in negotiation between the sides, and should not be the pre 67 borders. Had the Arabs been ready for this, the Palestinians could have their own state long ago.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 12:49 pm
Sory Mose, A State could not use the land that does not legaly belong to it. I was talking about more recent history, again, sory to say but Ottomans rule of the land they conquered not only in the Middle East but also Europe I am familiar with. Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, as well as Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, at the end of WWI DID NOT RESOLVE the Eastern Problem that existed under the Ottomans. Manny reason for that. Therefore only amicable soluition for ISRAEL is to comply with existing UN Security Resolutions, and leave the politics of conquest behind. Moreover, treaty between the states are not an act of force. On the contrary, it is understanding as well as obligation to comply with the international law. As a Jew, I am dissapointed with the current, as well a some previous governments of Israel. I am ashamed to say thta I am a Jew. OK.
Carla Berg
Austria - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 2:54 pm
To Carla Berg last letter. What I find hard to agree with in your letters, is that you never ask the other side to comply with international law as you do with Israel. The execution of the resolutions of the UN can be done only if both sides are doing their part. The Arabs should agree to end the conflict and give a real peace, and the Israelis should withdraw from territories conquered in 1967 (and not from ALL of the territories. This is explicit in the abiding English wording of UNSC 242). It is as simple as that, and is what Egypt and Jordan already accomplished. It is an undisputable fact that in the case of Egypt, Israel did give up all the land for peace, which proves that your point about Israel cilgining to a conquest policy is simply untrue. And although there are forces within Israel who wish to hold on to most of the land, the majority of Israelis will agree to give it up in exchange for real peace, as we did with Egypt, but they expect to get something back from the Arab side. The problem is that some Arab nations, and especially the Syrians and the Palestinians, cannot bring themselves to agree to that. They still hope to make history go backwards and overturn the outcome of 1948! As the Arabs were the responsible side for both the 1948 and the 1967 wars, they must pay some historical price for the violent policy they adopted then and ever since. So please, if you want to achieve some progress, try to balance your calls and lecture also the Arab side. And by the way, I am not ashamed at all to be a Jew, and I don't think you have any reason to be ashamed either, but this is a matter of private feelings, of course.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 08, 2002 at 4:05 pm
Moshe, I do NOT CONDONE violence, however, Israeli war with Egipt and Jordan was resolved to satisfaction of the parties involved. The Peace Teaty between Egipt and Israel, as well as with Jordan benefited all concerned. This is however, NOT the case with Siria or the Palestinians. If Israeli politicians are concerned about the peace, they would take simmilar aproach as with Jordan and Egipt. Arab states DID NOT SUPORT PALESTINIANS, the Palestinians were used as the pons in tge game of political shess. It is at the present time that the Arab Ligue provides the support to Palestininas. Look I was 10 years old weh the war stared, I had to ware the Star of David arm-band. To condone what the present Israeli government does, I simply could not do. It is wrog legaly and morally. To see Istarls action like Jenine, as well as others is to compare David and Goliat. Yes I am ashemed that Israeli government would set its standards at the lowest denominator in treatment of other humans. It is ISRARL that is loosing its credibility regardless of political spiel.
Carla Berg
Austria - Friday June 14, 2002 at 6:02 pm
In defence of Israeli position Moshe propose that Palestinian "must pay some historical price for the violent policy they adopted then and ever since".
I am simply speachless in front of such a statement. If I where on the Israeli side I would be trying hard to make poeple forget the history of the conflict , a history that within a generation converted them from a 10% minority to an 80% majority in a country where they were obviously not very welcome. A history that uprooted millions of civilians from their homeland and made refugees out of them.
The Israelis have been subjected to violence from Palestinians, but so have the French from Algerian, the British from Americans, the Germans from the French, the British and the Americans. How would Mosche react to Germans asking Israel to "pay some historical price for the violent policy they adopted then and ever since against German Nazis".
I know you are scandalized by the conparision and fail to see the parallel. I am still soul searching to see where is the mental obstacle between our positions that makes things that are very obvious to me and most Palestinians so remote to you and most Jewish Israelis.
As for your point that Syrians and Palestinians seem more upset than Jordanians and Egyptians. There seem to be an obvious corralation between how upset poeple are and how much of their land you occupy.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday June 15, 2002 at 10:55 am
To Shibl. Oh I thought this forum have just died out of lack of interest... But I welocme you back! I propose that the difference between our stands lies in different versions of history: One which I lived through (and even paticipated in some parts), and one you were taught by your relatives. In the history I have lived through and know from first hand knowledge to be true, the Arabs (part of whom began to call themselves Palestinians between 1965 and 1970) were those who initiated attacks time and again (1929, 1936-8, 1947-8, 1953-6, 1967, 1969-70, 1973, 1978-82, 1987-91, 1996, 2009-02) and were usually defeated. In your version of history, things were probably very different... As I said already many times, it must be very frustrating to be both the unjust side and the weak side at the same time. So if you cannot turn into the winning side, you have at least to twist history to justify the way you act and the unnecessary suffering of your people. After all thay could have an independant state long ago, had they choose to compromise instead of committing violent attacks and terrorism against civilians, and then cry foul over the Israeli retaliation. And by the way, I never said that Jordanians and Egyptians are less upset than the Syrians and Palestinians. All I said was that we reached a peace pact with those nations based upon the returning of conquered land. Only the future can tell if a similar peace can be reached with the syrians and the Palestinians.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 15, 2002 at 11:21 am
In response to Mosche (thanks for the welcome :), I share your version of the history, I will leave to historians the task of deciding who technically started each of the conflicts, but I agree that even if Israel started them it did so out of security concern.
It is in setting the date of the beginning of the conflict that we disagree. Here is my interpretation:
1) Colonisation is viewed as unjust by most
2) The British occupied Palestine
3) In order to advance some (financial, geopolitical or even moral) of their goals, they promised the Jews a favorable immigration policy into the land they occupied
4) In the eyes of the Palestinains the newly arrived Jews were viewed as colonists, in the same way English settlers would be viewed
5) The newly arrived Jews entertained colnialist principles and so reinforced this view by their ideology and actions. Any reading of Zionist litterature will confirm this
6) The Palestinians aided by other Arab states probably did start 1929, 1947, and others. But they did so as they would have fought the French colonies in Algeria.
So in conclusion the (New) Jews are proxy colonialists, and the wars waged against them were anti-colonial wars.
Now it is a fact that unlike other anti-colonial wars and as a result of the attachement of the Jews to these colonies and their incredible bravery, discipline, ingenuity and luck, the Palestinians lost a string of wars resulting in aggrivation of their plight.
This why I view that any "historical justice" arguments will lead to Hamas like positions, it is only by saying that history is a road and what is important is not what road you took but where you are, that there is any chance of a compromise from the Palestian side.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday June 15, 2002 at 11:27 am
Your second point regarding the Egyptian and Jordanians compromising.
Simple math: Egypt 2002-Egypt 1900=+American aid
Jordan 2002-Jordan 1900=0
Syria (proposed peace)-Syria 1900=-Parts of Golan
Palestine (proposed peace)-Palestine 1900=-80% of land
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Saturday June 15, 2002 at 4:24 pm
Hm, I was under the impression that there is only one history that is correct. You mean personal interpretation of events??? or may be just "new correct version" of events.???
Carla Berg
Austria - Saturday June 15, 2002 at 7:01 pm
I agree with Carla that only one history that is correct. In this conflict it is not the facts that are in dipute (most of the time) but how you synthesise those facts into summary views, eg "Palestinian suffering is the result of their hostile attitude towards Jews", or "Palestinians are on the week and unjust side", or "Israel is the last colonial power".
Of course most of those views can be defended by bringing in a subset of the facts. I was trying to present what I think is a correct view, but I am open to ideas that will guide me to a better interpretation.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 12:34 am
To Shibl last letters. Nobody is colonial in his own home. This land is the homeland of the Jews and it will probably stay so for the future we can see. It is the same twisted meaning you tried to attach to "racism" in that context that you are now try to attach to "colonialism". Having said that, I agree that it is also the home of the people who call themselves now Palestinians. As both nations proved in the past they cannot live together, the only viable solution is division. This was the judgement of the international community in 1947 and had the Arabs accepted it then, they wouldn't have come to the fate that befelled them. It is still the only solution, but the borders cannot be those that the Arabs violated in 1947 and then in 1967. It is a simple truth that the extrmists on both sides cannot bring themselves to accept. Now you can choose where you stand of course, but if you don't accept something like the offer of Barak in 2000, all you will get is more cycles of violence like the present one, in which more Palestinians will get killed than Israelis, but you will come to the same end result, more or less.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 1:01 am
To Another of Shibl letters (I admire your ability to produce them) you try to make the impression that in 1900 there were independant entities by the names of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Palestine. Than you go on to equate the assumed situation of these entities between now and 1900. Nothing can be further from the truth! In 1900 all these areas were provinces of the Ottoman Empire and had different names and borders. Modern Egypt came out of a British protectorate state in 1952. TransJordan was an artificial creation of the British Mandate which had carved it out of the Palestinian mandate in 1928 when the Hashemites dinasty lost their grip in Arabia. Modern Syria is also a very artificial entity that was established in 1946 with the end of the French mandate. And as for Palestine, there has never been a state by that name, although I hope we shall see one in the near future. Of the four, only Egypt can be looked upon as a normal nation with a more or less clear national and geographical identity. All the others are artificial assemblages of very mixed ethnical and religious units, part of whom came into being by the caprises of 20th century history. It just comes down to show how much we can play with words to justify almost everything. A nice try, though.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 12:28 pm
I knew that my 1900 date will solicit this (correct) response. However I think you still get the point that it is more easy to make peace when the deal on the table is a return to status quo before the conflict or an imrovement.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Sunday June 16, 2002 at 11:22 pm
If you guys get a chance, read this article: http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/
Land_Grab_2002.asp
Bobby L
NY/USA - Monday June 17, 2002 at 10:25 am
Regarding the colonial issue.
First let me clarify the context of the discussion and my position.
1) The post is a reply to a thread that started by the statement that the Palestinians "must pay some historical price for the violent policy they adopted then and ever since". Mosche then argued that the Palestinians started the conflict by their aggressions in 1929, 1947, etc.
2) My argument was that the conflict did not start with the aggressions but with the massive unwanted Jewish immigration and the ideology of those immigrants.
3) To be very clear again the situation today is different, in that Israel is indeed populated by a majority who would want to make it the Jewish homeland, so the argument today is very different. Even though I have some reservations but they are on a different level and I think they are less major.
4) So going bakc to history. Jewish immigration is not colonisation, since the new immigrants are not attached to England. But it is analogus, for the following reasons:
a) The immigration was facilitated by the occupying power
b) The objective of the policy was serving some interests of this power (even if one argue it was a moral interest)
c) The scale and manner was rejected by the majority of the inhabitants
d) The new immigrants had no intention of adopting the new land as is, but wanted to create a major shift in its culture, way of life, etc. In a way that is not perceived as beneficial by the majority of the locals
e) A large number of new immigrants perceived themselves as a superior group that had certain god-given privilages not shared by the majority of the native population
f) The majority of the new immigrants viewed the native population as irrelavant, easily displacable, and at best fit for an inferior role in their vision for the future.
5) So again they were not colonialists, but they were fought for the exact same reason as if they were. 6) To tie it all together :) the 1929, ... aggressions where not unproveoked, but where based on real grivances of the Palestinians
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Monday June 17, 2002 at 12:25 pm
To Shibl of June 17th. So it all comes down to the point of whether a part of the local population were justified when they objected to the Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel or not. I say part, because no referendum or pole was ever made to decide that, and most of those locals were at first inactive in the conflict. But this is not important, the important point was that at the end of the 19th century and at the first 40 years of the 20th century immigration from Europe to other countries like USA, Australia, Canada, Argentine etc, was the rule of the day rather than the exception, and of course the real native population was not asked. In this case, the immigrants were even more justified because it used to be their country in the past and they kept a continuoud presence there for 3000 years, maybe more than any other ethnic group in hidtory. So, I maintain that the local different Arab speaking groups (not that it matter much, but this was their real political organization at the time) did not have any legal or moral right to oppose the immigration of the Jews into the Land of Israel. They never owned this land as a political unit. They lived there, they owned homes and some parts of the land. Other parts were essentially empty and these were the parts that served the Jewish build up until 1947, as all the land the Jews built on was legally purchased and usually was turned by them from swamps, deserts and wilderness into arable land. Furthermore, at the same times, international institutes were established which those Arabs could bring their case to. Instead they chose the path of war, and once you do that, you have to accept that the results of the war you initiated yourself, will decide the matter. I think the major mistake the local Arabs made was not accepting the 1947 resolution of the UN which was already an established institution embodying the concept of international law. They did not even try to appeal this resolution, which in my opinion was very favourable for them. They chose to attack immediately with the expressed aim to finish off the Jewish presence in the land. Once they did that, in my humble opinion, they lost all rights to the land they formerely held. As I said many times before, it is very similar to the case of the German Sudetten population, who were deported right after WW2 from the Czechoslovakian republic and suffered personally the results of German Physical agression that started the war. If you start a war, you must be ready to pay for the reaults!
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 17, 2002 at 6:20 pm
I agree with Mosche that the case is very similar to the colonisation of the Americas.
Most poeple agree that this was a brutal chapter of human history and do not blame the natives for fighting for their land. This recognition of wrong is an important part of the treatment of the native poeples of Canada for example. The natives are provided with special rights rather than being reduced to second class citizens.
The idea is not to send the "New" Canadians back to France, Germany, England, etc. But to recognise that mistakes were made, even if they led to great results.
Until Israel acknowledges those mistakes it will have to live with half truths and hypocritical accounts of itself. This fantasy based view of history will lead it to continue its wrong doing in regards to its own citizens as well as its neigbours (in my opinion).
I will do some research on the German Sudetten case before I reply to your analogy. Probably I will find a new cause to complain about :)
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Tuesday June 18, 2002 at 10:36 am
Jari, I have to take objection to your comment (03 June 3:15am) that the existence of the state of Israel is an issue to debate here. Israel is a sovereign state recognised by the vast majority of states in the world and sits in the UN much as do other countries. There are of course those who wish to de-legitimise or reverse that existence but no amount of debate will achieve this end so, in my entry of the 01 June, I argued the fruitlessness of debating personal views of history. Do we actually imagine that someone will come up with such a compelling argument that Israelis will go home and pack their bags or that suddenly the Arab world will see the error of its ways and embrace Israel it would a brother? Now if the debaters on this site wish to argue the rights of states to exist let me recommend that they choose more substantial territory and ask whether America or my country Australia have a right to exist. Here all the clichés used in discussing the actions of Israel really do apply. The European "invaders/occupiers," unlike the Israelis, had and have no ancestral claim at all to their current homes and they were guilty of actions which can readily be described in such terms as "genocide(both cultural and actual), massacres, atrocities, apartheid, dispossession, criminal acts, murder, racism" etc. etc. I don't believe that any of this is even in dispute and yet both nations exist and their right to do so is not even in question. Is this just a because of the time elapsed ie. 200 years of existence v. 50? Perhaps, but I don't think so. I believe that there are few who debate Israel's right to exist who see the bigger picture and realise that while they argue this point they are in effect denying the Palestinians the right to exist in a future Palestine. Israel will exist despite the debate but, while Israel's very existence is questioned or threatened, the atmosphere of trust and compromise required to achieve Palestinian statehood is lacking. Let me remind all of the raison d'etre of this site, ie. finding a road to a resolution of this conflict. That road is not via arguments over differing views of history. Unless any of you have not noticed, there is little evidence after months of debate that one side is winning the hearts and minds of the other. We should not argue the rights of one or other side to exist but rather find a way in which they may co-exist.
Paul Spira
Sydney
Australia - Tuesday June 18, 2002 at 2:19 pm
To Paul Spira of June 18th. With all due respect, I think you missed the point here. What I was trying to do all along is to see whether someone like Shibl, apparently a moderate, highly educated and very able Palestinian, can be convinced to bring himself to the point of acknowledging the right of Israel not simply to exist, but to exist as a Jewish state. For this to happen, he should understand that the Palestinians should forgo what is called "the right of return", and be rewarded with an independant Palestinian state instead. Now the situation seemed to me that he cannot, and this of course bring very gloomy thoughts about the chance to ever have peace between the two sides. The feeling you get is that even a moderate Palestinian still believes they are the side who is wronged, that should be acknowledged as the "victim" and that do not bear the main responsibility for what history we witnessed in this part of the world. If this is indeed the case, there is still very little we can do about real peace, because as far as I know, the majority of Israelis are ready to give up territory, but they are not ready to give up on the dream of a Jewish state, which means that the majority of the citizens within the final borders of Israel will be Jews, and therefore will never accept "the right of return" of palestinians into this part of the Land of Israel.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Wednesday June 19, 2002 at 11:11 am
Thank you Mosche for using me as a prototype Palestinian moderate :)
First a correction, I am actually a Canadian Syrian (horror).
I think that despite my multiple itirations, one point is missed.
My position that is representative of many Palestinian (and Palestinian sympathither) moderates does not annul Mosche desire that Israel should remain a Jewish state.
I said it several times and I will say it again: "Jews who live in Israel today have every right to live there independent of the history of the conflict".
Israel has the right to define its national character in the same way any nation does, no more no less.
The Palestinian refugees still have a right to return, as is the case with any person in any country who was evicted or decided to temporarily leave his land to avoid violence.
That does not mean that no solution can be found.
The Israelis can maintain their desire for ethnic purity by negotiating with the Palestinians and giving them something worthwhile that will make abandon their right.
It is up to the Palestinians to accept or refuse, and up to the Israelis to give them a compelling offer.
Of course in the real world the Israelis have the upper hand that was acquired through force, so they could return to them a part of their rights and the Palestians might accept.
So basically I (the prototype moderate) do not refuse the fact that Israel can decide its destiny, but I refuse the primacy of its desires over basic human rights.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Wednesday June 19, 2002 at 4:49 pm
To Shibl of June 19th. Thanks for clarifying your identity. And thanks again for making my point so clear. You maintain, that despite the fact that they were the side who initiated the use of violence in this conflict, despite the fact that they continued to do so for more than 70 years, despite the fact that coexistence of this kind has proved to be a recipe for disaster everywhere, despite the facts that most of the actual refugees has already died, while their descendants number now more than 3 times the original number, the Palestinians still have the right to return. In other words, you preach for the continuation of this conflict forever, making a demand which Israel cannot accept without committing suicide. You put the Palestinians as a different class from all other tens of millions of post WW2 refugees whose descendants cannot go back to their original countries because the world have changed in one way or another. You seem also to be ready to let them rot in refugee camps for generation after generation (again like no other refugee group in the world) just to keep the flame burning. So what it comes down to, in my humble opinion, is that you call for an endless war, and this is from someone who is indeed moderate. That's exactly why I said I see very little hope for real peace. It is exactly this attitude by the Arabs that give all the ammunition to the fanatics and hardliners among us Israelis, who keep telling us (moderate Israelis) "The Arabs want it all, so why give them anything ". No Shibl, the right of return is not a basic human right for someone who behaved like the Germans did in WW2 and like the Arabs did in 1947-8. It is something they lost there and then, and they keep losing it with every suicide bombing today. Unless they come to realize that, I am afraid we shall not see an end to this conflict any time soon. There was a real window of opportunity that was opened by the Oslo accord, but the Palestinian leadership never really grabbed it, because any real negotiation means that the parties are making a compromising process and approach each other by conceding aomething of their opening statements. Yet Arafat did not move one step from the positions he stated on the White House lawn in September 1993. And now I see that these are the positions that Arabs who consider themselves moderate are standing for without any readiness to move from that. One can despair then of believing in any chance for a real breakthrough, and it is your approach that makes it so clear, so I have to thank you for helping to make my point.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 5:46 am
Moshe, it appears that you have mixed the rights to return with the emotions of yours. Rights to return is a universal human right. Universal Humann rghts belong to ALL people not only Jews. German, Poles, as well as Palestinians. Granted, there are people that depend on political interpretation mixed with a dose of emotion when debating Universal Human Right issues. With tendency to segraget people into national groups. I do not know, but are you are avare that Her Hitler attacked Poland, in order to protect Germa population in Sudaten land (Poland)? or so he claimed.??? Today in Israel Palestinian relations, one fact remains, Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. That occupation promotes violence and reprisal. There is no posibility to resolve Israeli - Palestinian dispute with violent means. Violence from both sides leads to more violence. Reprisial for reprisal, or "eye for and eye - tooth for a tooth" docrine does not resolve problems. It perpetuates the existing disputes and reprisials. The main propblem in Realist Theory. Question is how many people have to be killed, in order to subsribe to a differnt approach and way of thinking, I mean political solutions, not the military might.????
Carla Berg
Austria - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 11:45 am
Mosche in response to your earlier comment you talk of "the dream of a Jewish state, which means that the majority of the citizens within the final borders of Israel will be Jews".
You refuse the right of return to the Palestinian refugees based on that dream.
What would be your reaction if the natural growth of the existing Israeli Palestinians creates a non-jewish majority in Israel?
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 2:02 pm
To Carla Berg of June 20th. It is strange that on the one hand I tend to agree with many of the things you are saying, but on the other hand I find that you are so out of touch with the actual history and the real standpoints of the sides as to see everything upside down. You seem everytime to attack the wrong side. You talked about Hitler who attacked Poland. It is exactly what the Arabs did time and again! They attacked us in 1947, in 1967, in 1973 and between these major wars, we did not attack them! You said that violence leads nowhere and I agree with you, but why don't you go and say it to the Palestinians who are keeping the violence going? As for the right of return, why don't you go to your Czech and Polish neighbours and ask them the reason they don't let the native Germans of their countries to return? It is very simple, had you lived with a neighbour in the same house, and your neighbour tried to kill you because you did something he didn't like very much like bringing all your family to live with you in the appartment you bought, you wouldn't let him return to this house even if he was born there! So the right of return is a universal right, but in certain circumstances, which we encounter all around the world, it comes second to the basic human right to live, which the Arabs have showed they don't care for at all! Now I am all for Israel withdrawal from most of the Western Bank and all of the Gaza strip, but you are wrong to base this demand on illegality, as you did in many of your letters. The Israeli occupation of these territories is completely legal. It is as legal as was the occupation of Germany bt the Allies from 1945 to 1952, until a peace accord was signed. As long as no Arab side signs a peace pact that decide the borders and the future of these territories, this occupation is legal. You may be angry and surprised te hear it, but the settlements are also legal. They are legal because their land was not taken from any individual Palestinian, unless he legally sold it, and there is no such thing as a national Palestinian land, because there never was a Palestinian state. The problem with the occupation and the settlements is not that they are not legal, but that they are not moral! We Israelis cannot be justified in taking from other nation the rights of self determination and the rights to be free and equal that we demand for ourselves. This is exactly the reason I am active in a political Israeli group that preach a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from these teritories even without any agreement with the Palestinians. I must say though, that opinions like yours, or of Shibl, goes a long way towards weakening the moderate Israelis standpoint and strengthening the stanpoint of the hardliners.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 2:12 pm
To Shibl of June 20th. You asked a direct question and I shall give you one. If this ever happens, we shall have to accept it, because keeping to our moral and democratic base is even more important than our national integrity. On the other hand, the division of the land into two states for two people more or less according to the Clinton outline will make this a question for a very far future. By that time, I hope, the relations between the peoples on both sides will rehabilitate to such a degree, that the question will have much less meaning than it has today.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 2:48 pm
Moshe, I am old ehough that I personaly remember some of the events you at telling me that are wrong, I shall not waste time to presvede you differently. As for occupation of Germany folloving WWII, you mean that the current Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is the same, sorry to say Moshe but there is no logic in your arguments. Israel is a member state of the United Nations, and as such is obligated to comply with the international laws (remember that at the end of WWII United Nations laws did not exists as they do today.) Indeed a strange argument from Israeli, because it is the United Nations resolution that established Israeli State, and as such United Nations is the best friend of Israel, not Clinton or Bush. Like it or not United Nations is the forum of states and the Security council resolutions are part of the international law, a low that most states comply with, while Israel is not. Please giove me the legal references to your comments on on Israels right to occupy Palestinian land. I would appritiate such references. Thanks
Carla Berg
Austria - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 3:12 pm
Mosche writes "This is exactly the reason I am active in a political Israeli group that preach a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from these teritories even without any agreement with the Palestinians"
Just a small comment that I appreciate your courage Mosche in holding a position that is moderate in the midst of this crisis.
I know that for outsiders like myself it is easy to discuss moral values, since we will not suffer the consequences. As the Arabic proverb says "Counting the blows is not like receiving them"
So again it is refreshing to see a non-extremist view from a person that is personally involved.
I will however still debate with you on issues and hope to learn from you and others in this forum.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 3:35 pm
To Carla Berg last letter. Sorry Carla, but you are wrong again here in almost everything you wrote. First, the United Nations was established in 1945 and its rules applied to the situation in Germany in the years I talked about. As for complying with UN resolutions, I guess you mean the Security Council resolution 242 of 1967. All you have to do is to read the resolution itself to learn that I am right. There is mutuality involved in this resolution. It calls on Israel to withdraw from conquered territories (and by the way, "from territories" and not from "ALL the teritories", so the amount of Israeli withdrawal remained open for interpretation). But the resolution also recognized the right of Israel to "live within safe and recognized borders". It is this demand exactly that the Arabs could not bring themselves to comply with. So the correct situation is that both sides accepted the resolution in principle, and it took the Arabs more time to do so than it took for the Israelis, yet each side waits for the other to do his part first. The Arabs underline the need for Iaraeli withdrawal, and the Israelis underline the demand from the Arabs to sign a peace treaty. It is strange that all your lecturing are so one sided. I can assure you that once all the Arabs comply with this UN resolution, then Israel will go along with it as well. By the way, you should remember that the Arabs were the first who set the precedance of not complying with UN resolutions, when they did not accept the 1947 resolution and cose to attack their Jewish neighbours instead. Another thing you should do in my humble opinion is to diferentiate between your feelings and actual facts: no Palestinian land is occupied by Israel, because no land from Palestinian individuals was confiscated, and government land in this country was never "Palestinian" as such, because there never was a Palestinian sovereign state here. It was Ottoman land, than British land, than Jordanian land and then Israeli land, with all of these powers being occupiers of one sort or another. So my advise to you is to base your argument not on legality, because this will lead nowhere, but on general moral and practical arguments. And may I ask you for once, what is your solution for the conflict? "How would you advise Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, Palestinian Chairman Arafat, and US President Bush?" After all this is the question that started this forum in the first place.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 4:13 pm
My advise to Sharon and Arafat is to resign in dignity and keep a more symbolic role as elder statemen.
My advise to Bush is to come and visit the PA. Images of him walking in the rubble and rubbing shoulders with the locals will enhance his image throughout the world.
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 6:23 pm
To Carla Berg. Just so that you understand better what was really decided in UNSCR 242 I attach here an excerpt from a paper by the man who actually wrote most of it. Eugene W. Rostow who was the undersecretary of state in the state department at the time. You may not like it but this is what he has to say: "Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the" territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the territories..." This paper was written in 1991, and if you give me an E-mail address, I shall send you the full text. I think this may well answer some of your questions and show you who is complying with UN resolutions and who is not.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Thursday June 20, 2002 at 11:59 pm
The whole story of the missing "the" in the resolution is quite mysterious. Not only is the text obscure and sounds ambigious, but the French translation included the definite pronoun.
It seems that the strict interpretation of the law is on the side of no "the".
It seems too that the intent was no "the".
I find it quite weird personally since without the "the", the whole resolution is meaningless. (Would a withdrawl from 1 m2 be sufficient from the Israeli side?) However I have to admit that weird as it is, the resolution wanted to be undecided to please all the member states, thus resulting in a resolusion that is confusing and meaningless.
Some questions remain:
Did all the contributers understand the implication of the missing "the?"
If yes why was it not made clearer by stating "some"?
Why was the French translation so blatantly misguided?
Shibl Mourad
Canada - Friday June 21, 2002 at 1:45 am
Moshe, Re references my interest is not in opinions but actual legal documents.Thanks for trying. UN Resolutions are clear in their intent.The 1967 War was a war of agression. Fascts could not be changed. Carla
Carla Berg
Austria - Friday June 21, 2002 at 2:37 am
To Carla and Shibl last letters. I think you should try and read all the Rostow paper to understand that resolution 242 was not ambigious at all, and of course, the abiding version is the English one (most of the participants did not understand French at all). You can find it in http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml. The main point is not the amount of withdrawal, but the necessity to sign a peace treaty that will recognize the right of all countries involved to live within safe and recognized boundaries. This is clearly a precondition for Israeli withdrawal. This was done between Israel and Egypt in 1979 and led in that case to complete withdrawal. Other Arab sides could not bring themselves to this point and thereby extended beyond belief the occupation period. As for Carla's last remark you are as usual right and wrong at the same time. The 1967 war was indeed "a war of agression". The only point is that all the world but you recognized immediately that it was agression from the Arab side and not from the Iareli side that led to the war and its results. I participated in this war and I know from first hand that prior to this war, Israel has no intention whatsoever of attacking its neighbours. Otherwise, UNSCR 242 we analyzed just now would have been very different.
Mosha Achmon
Israel - Friday June 21, 2002 at 6:09 am
Moshe, I am gratefull for your information regading the UN/SCR 242. However, document in question (The Resolution 242) is clear as drafted. "Inadmissibility of the acqusition of terretory by war." It is nothing controversal about the call for withdarawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories gained in 1967 War. It is time to stop distortion of meaning and intent of the UN Resolution 242. I suggest that you read ALL UN Resolutions on the Israel and the Middle East problems. (Resolution 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 568, 469, 471, 476, 478, 448, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726, 799, all these resolutions call on Israel to stop wiolations of international law. To date Israel is challenging the United Nations as well as international law.Israel must recognise the role of law and live to its obligations as a member of United Nations. This War is the war that Israelcould not win, its stands against the rules of the UN Charter, as well as the rules of international law.(Plese read Resolution 252 (1968) and 267 (1969) in particular. All resolutions could not be "peculiar" as you indicated. Only way to resolve Israel/Palestinian dispute is to fullfill legall requiriments, and acceptance of moral obligatipns, both required in ALL UN RESOLUTIONS pertaining to ISRAEL and Other states, including ARAB States. Thanks Moshe, for your insite of my knowledge, but I am not an ACTIVIST, my interest are factual.
Carla Berg
Austria - Friday June 21, 2002 at 12:20 pm
Most people don’t understand why the Middle East is plagued by violence. It is because Israel effectively stole vast land and property from the Palestinians, although Israel fails to see it. The “reasons” given for Israel moving in there are entirely inadequate. That the United Nations, Britain or France “gave” Palestine for a Jewish homeland is inadequate: it was not theirs to give. That ancient ancestors had that land is inadequate: there had been centuries of discontinuation in possession, except of a scant portion. That the Old Testament decreed it is inadequate: the Old Testament is not the universal book of man. That the Jews were victimized during World War II is inadequate: one victimization doesn’t justify another. And that they had no home of their own is inadequate: other people should not be dispossessed of their homes in order to provide them one. There is uproar about the bombings of civilians in Israel. However, remember that the US responded to a nation’s attack with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Jennifer Winkler
California, USA - Friday June 21, 2002 at 4:11 pm
To Jennifer Winkler of June 21. A warm welcome to this forum. I tend to agree with you that all the reasons you counted in your letter are in themselves inadequate to justify Jewish taking over all of the land we call the Land of Israel by force. They are, however, good enough reasons for the Jews to come here peacefully to live in this land (from your address I assume that you also don't live in a land that belonged to your forefathers), without the right of anybody to deny that. What strikes me is that you ommitted the most important reason for the present situation! The fact that Israel never "stole" any land from any one, but has taken it over in a self defence moves after being attacked both in 1947-8 and in 1967. Prior to 1947, not a single peace of land has been taken by force from any Arab by the Jews! All the Jews did during all the years from 1882 to 1947 was to come and establish new settlements on land legally bought and usually in places that were quite empty because they were swamps, deserts etc. Once they were physically attacked by their Arab neighbours, however, it was their full right to act in self defence. The reasons that changed borders and land owning here in the Middle East are the same reasons that changed the borders of Germany and Japan after WW2 and the same reasons that the German speaking population was deported from Poland and Czechoslovakia (although Israel has never gone that far, as the presence of 1.2 Israeli Arab citizens with equal rights within the borders of pre 1967 Israel clearly attest). The people who chose violence as their means of dealing with problems must realize they have to bear the consequences! If you start (from 1929 on until these very days) to kill Jews just because of the fact that they are Jews, you cannot then complain if you lose your land just because you are an Arab! And sadly, the realities of this world is that these things act on a national rather than individual level. But let me ask you a simple question none of the Arab supporters in this forum has really tried to give a complete answer to. What is your proposal for a solution to this conflict? Do you think, for example, that all the Israeli Jews should climb on airplanes and try to find another place that will accept them? Or maybe you have another creative idea? Please, I am waiting for an honest answer, but you can rest assured that we shall not take the advise you gave in your last sentence and will not respond to the national attacks we are experiencing all through these years with anything like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even not like Bagdad, Belgrad or Afganistan (all bombed by the US Air Force with very good reasons)!
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Friday June 21, 2002 at 4:19 pm
To Carla of June 21. I agree with you that it is time to stop distorting the meaning of all these UN resolutions. All of them contain the element of mutuality which you somehow fail to recognize. The preconditon for eventual Israeli withdrawal is a peace treaty signed by the Arabs. So please use your considerable persuasion abilities on the Arab side and find the Palestinian and Syrian leaders who will follow the late president Sadat and the late King Hussain and sign a sensible peace treaty which will respect the UN resolutions with their full meaning and the international law. I can promiss you that you will see Israeli withdrawal very soon after that!
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Saturday June 22, 2002 at 12:47 pm
To Moshe, (June 18) "With all due respect" I would like to say that it is all too obvious what you are trying to do. Yours, in my opinion, is the best reasoned and most moderate voice in this forum and I admire your tenacity when attacked on all sides by opposing views. You have been instrumental in creating a stimulating intellectual exercise in your trying to weld a consensus on a complex history. Unfortunately this is a monumental waste of time as you are doomed to fail. This is not because your arguments are wrong or your efforts inadequate but rather because the only things amenable to reason are those we can regard dispassionately and no one looks on Israel and its recent history in this way. It always amazes me that many on Earth, to whose day-to-day existence Israel is as irrelevant as is the planet Pluto, nonetheless hold very strong views about how Israel, specifically, should conduct its domestic and foreign affairs. Many of these same concerned individuals don't give a sausage about the whole Arab world or how it is ruled, are uncertain about the difference between the Balkans and the Baltic let alone who has been doing what to whom there and they are totally bored with the politics of those southern appendages of the world Africa and South America. Given this remarkably disproportionate interest in such a tiny piece of land and how it should be divided, balanced and reasoned views are very hard to find and changing strongly held opinions is all but impossible. More serious than merely wasting time and energy on a futile exercise, however, is the fact that while you debate opposing views of history you ignore the very point of this forum: “How should the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict be resolved? How would you advise Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, Palestinian Chairman Arafat, and US President Bush?” If, at a time when the death toll on both sides is rising, your answer to this question is that you will engage in the intellectually stimulating exercise of debating history then you, and others on this site, are fiddling while Rome burns. Even if we cannot gain consensus on history we can agree on what pragmatic steps can be taken to deliver to both sides not everything each wants, but enough of what each wants as to be acceptable. Shibl I thank you for your contribution to this process on June 20. I am fully in agreement with you that, in the interest of the peace process, both Arafat and Sharon should resign, as you say “with dignity.” Even if both men have totally changed their former views and both are now peaceniks, they both carry too much historical baggage to ever hope to gain the trust of the other side. There are many other useful steps which can promote the peace that both sides need deparately but this is already too long so I will stop there.
Paul Spira
Sydney
Australia - Saturday June 22, 2002 at 1:02 pm
To Shibl (June 20) I am sorry but I did not deal with your other point regarding George Bush enhancing his image by walking through the rubble in the West Bank. I don't think this is a good idea as I suspect he would also walk through some Israeli body parts at the scene of a suicide bombing or two and I am not clear what this would do for his image in the Arab world.
Paul Spira
Sydney
Australia - Saturday June 22, 2002 at 11:13 pm
Today I picked up a copy of Life Magazine, dated 11/4/46. In it, there was a wonderful article about Palestine and how the Jewish terrorism was having a strong effect. It has many pictures of the land called "Palestine" and the minority, violent, terrorist groups such as Irgun and others. This article described (prior to the creation of the State of Israel) the greed, the poison, the unabashed zealotry and the arrogance of tracing this land, called Palestine, to Biblical roots to claim their ownership. For those who claim that there was never a Palestine, I suggest that the best source for information may in fact be, the contemporaneous writings and photograhps such as are contained in Life Magazine. I purchased this treasure for $5.50 at a used record/book store. Any mention of Palestinian Jews was only that of a small minority; the first settlement had not yet razed the land. What a joy it was to see the referrence to Jewsih terrorism.
sarah belletto
san rafael,
ca, USA - Sunday June 23, 2002 at 4:44 am
Moshe, this debate is not about emotions, bilblical history or personal expressions on various points.From my perspective debate should be impartial one. Moreover, emotional points stated on various arguments on this panel are an example of how the missunderstangs as well as unvilingness to regonise ALL PEOPLE as HUMANS. It is true that Jews have had suffered without a state for some 2000 years. However, this suffereing should serve as a guide line and moral if not legal obligation towards the fellow man. I must reiterate that as a Jew I am personally ashemed of the way Israel is behaiving. Continuity of such cruelty to other people living in Israel OCCUPIED TERRIOTORIES will inevitably dimish Israels reputation as a "democracy" as well as simpathy from the international community world over. That is the reason for me to be concerned. I do not like to see future references to Israel as a state of "land grab" and "gread", most of people in Israel would like to have pease and security. However, so du Arabs, Palestinians. Therefore i Must restate, that without compliance with international laws, there could be no international order, or pease and security for Israel or others who challange international laws. Empty promisses are worthless, it does not matter who promisses what. In order to have peace and security each state has responsibility under the UN Charter to protect its minorities, so does Israel. Unfortunatelly for Israel, challeng of international laws as well as United Nations, would not resolve Israels political problems.On the contrary in my oppinion it would increase those problems. Look at Spain, Northern Ireland and other places. Fortunatelly Ausrtia negotiated her problems with Italy over South Tyrol, by giving up claim of the South Tyrol.Yes numerous Austrians live in South Tyirol, however, decision was it vorted because there is a peace and no violance. Think about it, do you want peace and security or the land grab???????
Carla Berg
Austria - Sunday June 23, 2002 at 3:35 pm
To Sarah Belleto of June 22. Don't you think tha your joy when reading about Jewish terrorism speaks volumes about you? I for one thinks that nobody should be too happy, but rather saddened, when reading about terrorism, be it Jewish, Arab, Basque or whatever. But its your personal choise, of course. And now for the history. To our great shame, there were Jewish terrorist then and there are now. What you forgot to mention, however, that they were an isolated minority within the Jewish community of pre 1948 Israel as they are now, despised and condemned by the majority. Second fact you forgot is that their terrorism was not directed against their neighbour Arabs, but against the British Mandate military forces, and that civilians were almost never the primary tergets. And of course, it is clear that you know very little about the history of the settling of the Jews in the Land of Israel in the 20th century. By 1946, there were more than a hundred Jewish villages all around the land, all on land legally bought and transformed from desert and swamps into flowering habitats. The Jewish population numbered more than half a million by then, despite the combined efforts of the British Mandate and the local Arabs to prevent its growth. And you must know for sure that the then "Palestine" was no more than a technical term to describe the piece of land subject to the British mandate at the time, as has been the case since Roman times. That's all, there was no Palestinian nation at that time, and had you ask any of the Arab speaking natives prior to 1965 who he is, he would tell you proudly "I am an Arab". This same piece of land has been known by the name of the "Land of Israel" for even a longer time (about 3000 years), and it proves nothing as well.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 12:10 am
To Sarah Belleto of June 22. Don't you think tha your joy when reading about Jewish terrorism speaks volumes about you? I for one thinks that nobody should be too happy, but rather saddened, when reading about terrorism, be it Jewish, Arab, Basque or whatever. But its your personal choise, of course. And now for the history. To our great shame, there were Jewish terrorist then and there are now. What you forgot to mention, however, that they were an isolated minority within the Jewish community of pre 1948 Israel as they are now, despised and condemned by the majority. Second fact you forgot is that their terrorism was not directed against their neighbour Arabs, but against the British Mandate military forces, and that civilians were almost never the primary tergets. And of course, it is clear that you know very little about the history of the settling of the Jews in the Land of Israel in the 20th century. By 1946, there were more than a hundred Jewish villages all around the land, all on land legally bought and transformed from desert and swamps into flowering habitats. The Jewish population numbered more than half a million by then, despite the combined efforts of the British Mandate and the local Arabs to prevent its growth. And you must know for sure that the then "Palestine" was no more than a technical term to describe the piece of land subject to the British mandate at the time, as has been the case since Roman times. That's all, there was no Palestinian nation at that time, and had you ask any of the Arab speaking natives prior to 1965 who he is, he would tell you proudly "I am an Arab". This same piece of land has been known by the name of the "Land of Israel" for even a longer time (about 3000 years), and it proves nothing as well.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 1:11 am
Well, Moshe, you just might try and find that contemporaneous article, photos included, in Life Magazine, Nov.4, 1946. The Jewish population was quite low during that time. Of course, there was the British Mandate and prior to that, the turkish one. The point was that at that time, the Jewish infestation was becoming troublesome to all in that land, Britain included. As far as what it says about me, well, I am an American Palestinian and it does feel good to have the jews lableled as terrorists by an American writer/photographer as well as by Palestinians and Brits. Tonight, the Israelis surrounded Arafat's remnants of a home in Ramallah. B. Netanyhu was absolutely breathless to take to the airwaves on FOX News, trying so hard to have the analogy made between Arafat and Bin Laden. What a crock!!!! He himself is a well-spoken version of Bin Laden, taking advantage of our US problems to piggy-back his own agenda. He is nothing more than a well-spoken liar and thief; the Americans who buy into this are simply ignorant. If you were born and raised in Israel, suffice it say, that your textbooks in school are not an accurate history. Widen your sources, open your mind. I think you are a nice person but learn about your government. In the 60's when my country was WRONG in the VietNam War, many of us spoke out and many men refused to serve. We tried to find out as much as we could about the conflict; there were others who would say, MY country right or wrong...or "If you don't love it, Leave it". Not good approaches for democracies.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Monday June 24, 2002 at 10:22 am
To Sarah Belleto of the June 24. This letter of yours is even strengthening my point. In my humble opinion, the words you choose like "Jewish infestation" "liar anf thief" etc. are simply not in place in the kind of forum we are trying to put up here. And if you think that an article in a popular magazine like "Life", which naturally lives on the things that make noise and never study in depth, is equal to a lifetime of learning, than I think you are wrong here too. Moreover, "labeling" the Jews as terrorists, because a small number actually did it (and their so called "terrorism" would look like a chilren's play compared to present day terrorosm of the Palestinians or Al Qaeda), is tantamount to calling all the Muslims terrorists because Bin-Laden is. I am proud of being born and raised in Israel like you wrote, but this has never stopped me from criticizing our government policy, and I have already disclosed in this forum that I am active in a group which calls from unilateral withdrawal from most of the territories taken in the 1967 war, even without the other side signing a peace agreement (something they could have done long ago). So it seems to me that if one of us can be blamed by subscribing blindly to the policy of his people, right or wrong, it is you and not me. Now let me ask you (and Carla Berg, you can join in answering), where is a similar camp on the other side? Where are the demonstrations calling for compromise and peace? What is your proposed solution to the present state of affairs? Cam you give a complete sensible and logical answer?
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 10:36 am
To Carla Berg of June 23. It is again somewhat strange in my opinion, that you always start your letters asserting that we are dealing with facts and not in emotions, and than you go and produce the most emotional letters in this forum, full of capital letters and exclamation marks. Your whole limited concept revolves around the point of the "illegal occupation" and "compliance with international law", yet you failed to bring a single serious argument to support these claims. You failed to understand the principle of mutuality, which is the centerpiece of this international law. You failed to see that all the UN resolutions that demanded something that Israel should do, also demanded that the Arabs should do something too, and that it was always the Arab side that refuses first to do its part ever since the 1947 resolution. So if this is a somewhat juridic site (as the name suggests), and you are one of the judges, I would not hesitate to say, and please don't be offended, that you are a very biased and emotional judge. Peace has a strange quality, it needs the twos ides to be ready for it, and I think that by now, the weight of the evidence is that the Arab side has been the one less ready all along.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 11:10 am
To Moshe: If you think that Life Magazine (which by the way is no longer a publication) is a sensational magazine, you are very wrong. The interesting part about the Life article was its contemporanoeous nature....there was not yet an Israeli state nor a partition when that piece was done. But the piece focussed (almost foresaw) the Jewish take-over, the Jewish terrorism. And, by the way, being an Army does not lessen the terrorism label. Moshe, you may be for a two-state solution; I, having witnessed the ups and downse of it, have given up. There will be NO PEACE, NO SECURITY unless and until there is recognition that the land has been stolen and that there are plans for a greater Israel. As you may recall, you once stated that there had never been a Palestine...well, there certainly had been a Palestine, whether or not it was under British or Turkish control.
sarah belletto
san rafael
ca, USA - Monday June 24, 2002 at 2:50 pm
To Sara Belleto of June 24. I think you do yourself a great disservice by not trying to take a balanced view of the situation and by avoiding the facts that does not serve your standpoint in the conflict. The undeniable fact is that it were the Arabs who attacked the Jews folowing the 1947 resolution, and were those who refused to accept the decree of the international community expressed by the 29.11.1947 UN resolution. As for terrorism, I think most of the world would agree with me that the Arabs, and the Palestinians especially, have been much more active on that front than the Israelis. I live in a village that had kept very good relations with its Arab neighbours up until 1948, yet was attacked by them in that war without any hesitation. It is this kind of behaviour that caused the Arabs to lose what land they owned time and again. The land was not "stolen", it was taken over in wars of self defence, and a large part of it will eventually be returned once the Arab side signs a peace agreement, as was the case with Egypt in 1979, and with the Palestinian authority in 1993. And, if our efforts are successfull, maybe even before the Arabs sign such an agreement. In the end, the permanent arangements are going to be very much like the Barak-clinton outline (which by the way, Arafat said this week he is ready to accept now). It is just saddening to see how much life will be lost or injured before it comes to this end which is already known, more or less. As for the "Palestine" issue, of course there was a Palestine. It was here even in Roman times. All I said is that there was never an independant state by that name, and until about 1965 there was never a nation by that name that could claim that this piece of land belongs to it. As I told you already before, the same territory was called "the land of Israel" much longer than it was called Palestine, yet I never claimed that this in itself gave anybody the right to call this land his own. And of course you never tried to answer the question about your prefered solution to the conflict. How comes that all of you are so afraid of telling everybody else clearly that all you want is that somehow the Jews would disappear overnight?
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 3:04 pm
Moshe, thanks for numerous insults you dished out.I hope that some day you will understand whta I stated. I shal restate, to have peace BOTH Israel as a state and PALESTINIANS, who by the way have right to self determination and wish to have their own state, must complay with the International law. Israel failed to do so, therefore Israel as a State is legally and morally responsible to recognize and implements its obligations. I als MUST RESTATE that there be PEACE or SECURITY unless Israel live up to its OBLIGATIONS. I shall not waste any more of my time in debates with you for very obvious reasons. People like you and Prime Minister Sharon give insentive to those who are anti Israel. Simply stated "give the Jews bad name" Thanks for your insults, Carla
Carla Berg
AUSTRIA - Monday June 24, 2002 at 3:10 pm
Moshe, one more question, are the refrences to numerous UN Security Council Resolutions are not sufficient for you??? Have you reda them? Why dont you request Prime Minister Sharon to comply with them??? Carla
Carla Berg
Austria - Monday June 24, 2002 at 5:32 pm
To both of Carla's letters. First, I appologize if you feel insulted in any way, this is never my intention in any of the forums I write in (on thr other hand, remember what Truman said: "He who don't stand the heat should not enter the kitchen"). Second, please make up your mind if you want to debate with me or not. In your first letter you said you don't want to. In the second you ask me a direct question. So to which Carla should I relate, the one that doesn't want to hear from me anymore, or the one that asks me questions? Third, Did you read all these resolutions yourself? They are all based on resolution 242, the correct interpretation of which is of course that Israel is not obliged to withdraw from any territory before the Arabs signs a peace agreement with it which will determine the permanent borders. This clear message was restated and underlined by the speach of President Bush today. Sorry, Carla, as much as I respect you, I still think you fail to understand that little thing called mutuality that govern both international law and international relations (and personal relations as well). Before you call on the other side to oblige by any rules, you should make sure that you are ready to oblige by them yourself. So let me ask you now, why don't you call on Yasser Arafat and Bashar Assad to comply with the UN resolutions and negotiate peace with Israel without using terror and violence to promote their goals? I am calling daily, here in Israel, to a unilateral withdrawal from certain parts of the West Bank and from all of the Gaza strip in order to promote a little the chances to cool down the situation, yet you put me in the same baggage with Mr. Sharon? With all due respect, I think what I am doing here is much more than what you do to promote the idea of compromise and peace to the side you obviously support.
Moshe Achmon
Israel - Monday June 24, 2002 at 11:05 pm
Moshe: You don't get it...I am no longer interested in the peace process. It is more than clear that the Palestinians will be exterminated in the coming months and years. The Israelis have convinced our puppet president to go with their views. Since Israel depends on the US for its very existence, that is all she wrote. It's pretty strange to hear a president who was NOT elected by his own pople (Bush) tell the Palestinian people that Arafat should go. So, I am not intereted in comprosmising, not intersted in cerebral discussions. I say again, it's time for Hamas.
sarah belletto
san rafael
CA, USA - Tuesday June 25, 2002 at 11:09 pm
More thoughts on the middle east situation. It is such a transparent bunch of trash that is dished out about terrorist here and terrorist there. It is so conveniently tucked away that sharon is known as the Buthcher of beirut with charges pending. That Begin who became prime minister started his public life by leading a terrorist organiztion. So, spare me the angst about the "arab" terrorism. As an American, I feel at odds with my own country; i see that Bush has essentially doomed us (the Americans) to be subject to attacks and the well-earned hatred of the Islamic world. As the Americans go about their daily lives, they really have no idea of how much hatred this country has harvested throughout the world. They live in fear of unknown attacks and threats, on daily feeds of monitored media and barely whisper any real concerns they might have. I am ashamed to be an American today and that is a terrible feeling.
sarah belletto
san rafael
ca, usa - discussion continues