In his latest effort to look busy on the Israeli-Palestinian front, President Bush has now proposed a regional conference to be chaired by Secretary of State Condi Rice, in which Israel would join its Arab neighbors at the table. But lest this sound like a peace conference, don’t be fooled. Its purpose, a U.S. official told Haaretz, will be “to review progress toward building Palestinian institutions, look for ways to support further reforms and support the effort going on right now between the parties together.” If that sounds mushy, that’s precisely the intention. It’s all about “looking busy” without actually doing anything; “bolstering” a new Palestinian regime whose purpose in Israeli and American eyes is simply to serve as a gendarmerie for Israel’s security.
Israel has no interest in discussing a final-status two-state solution with Abbas. It has made clear that it will confine itself to “confidence-building” measures, such as taking Fatah gunmen off Israel’s wanted list if the movement agrees to turn its weapons on Hamas. The latest gestures fall well within the approach recently explained to Jewish Republicans by Elliot Abrams, White House Middle East policy director. As the Jewish Daily Forward reported, Elliot reassured his audience that “lot of what is done during Rice’s frequent trips to the region is ‘just process’ — steps needed in order to keep the Europeans and moderate Arab countries ‘on the team’ and to make sure they feel that the United States is promoting peace in the Middle East.” In other words, looking busy.
But if the Europeans and the Arab regimes and some of the U.S. media want to believe the fantasy that by pouring money and diplomatic support into an Abbas-regime shorn of any democratic legitimacy, while continuing to squeeze the life out of the population of Gaza for their temerity in voting for Hamas (actually, the West Bankers did too, but we’ll conveniently forget that for a moment, shall we…) is going to produce a solution to the conflict, the Palestinian voters have long since seen through it.
As Haaretz’s Danny Rubinstein put it, “It was not corruption and an absence of leadership that brought down the Fatah movement, and neither are they not what is causing it to fail now – but rather the fact that the political path of Abu Mazen and his friends has reached a dead end, and cannot be resurrected.” Rubinstein has reiterated what I’ve long believed — that the corruption in Fatah was a symptom of the organization’s political failure rather than its cause: For many Fatah leaders, it must have been abundantly clear that their strategy was going nowhere in terms of ending the occupation, and it became a kind of “every man for himself” vehicle for patronage.
Rubinstein continues:
Where is all this leading? Any Israeli who has occasion these days to meet often with Arabs from the West Bank, or speak by phone with Gaza residents, can increasingly hear comments such as: We can’t take it any more, we’re sick and tired of it. And the continuation: If only the days of full Israeli occupation would return. Occasionally one could think that these words are being said out of a desire to find favor with the Israeli listener. But the truth is that they are being said out of despair. When the hope of establishing a state within the territories, with Jerusalem as its capital, is lost, one can undertake to fight Israel to the finish, as Hamas proposes, or give up and say, under these circumstances, let there be occupation. In other words, make the State of Israel take full responsibility for the territories.
Sooner or later Hamas will fail in its war against Israel. But that does mean that there will then be a return to the days of Oslo and the two-state vision, which has withered and died since September 2000. Rather, there will be increasingly strong demands by Palestinian Arabs, who constitute almost half the inhabitants of this land, who will say: Under the present conditions we cannot establish a state of our own, and what remains for us is to demand civil rights in the country that is our homeland. They will adopt the slogans of the struggle of the Arabs who are Israeli citizens, who demand equality and the definition of Israel as a state of all its citizens. That won’t happen tomorrow morning, but there doesn’t seem to be any option to its happening eventually. If there aren’t two states for the two nations, in the end there will be one state.
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, the result of the 1967 war and Israel’s handling of its aftermath, was to obliterate the reality of a partitioned Palestine. Since the summer of 1967, there has been only one state between the Jordan River and the sea — an apartheid state. And the idea of dismantling it through separation into two distinct geographic entities may be an idea whose time has come — and gone.
The counterpoint to Danny Rubinstein’s perceptive analysis is that today’s Israelis seem reconciled with the status quo.
My anecdotal evidence tells me they’ve given up on peace but they view the current situation as bearable: life is not too good but it’s not too bad either — at least if you don’t live in Sderot.
Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have a hold on Israeli anxieties: not Gaza and the West Bank.
Never mind that life hasn’t been worse for Palestinians in decades.
This disconnect is bound to have profound political ramifications, none of them good.
The Save Darfur campaign is going strong in Israel (Kristof must be thrilled). Just a guess, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that 19th c. plantation owners in Mississippi were much concerned by the famines in China.
Pingback: Keep those Palestinians busy at Antony Loewenstein
Good post. It is most likely that Bush is just looking busy despite some believing that he is trying to salvage his legacy through this Israeli-Palestinian initiative. This conference in the fall with Rice, Blair etc only leaves Bush with less than a year and a half to produce results.
I agree that most of the cash will probably end up in the pockets of the fatah elite and the quality of life for an average west bank resident will remain the same. Bush mentioned negotiations to draw up mutually agreed upon borders, freeze settlement building and remove unauthorized outposts. Talk is cheap and we will see if any actions are taken in the next 18 months as these things are being monitored by various Israeli and international organizations.
The term “apartheid state” certainly describes the state of things since 1967 but what conditions do you think would trigger a move towards a just and democratic union between the jewish and palestinian peoples in a single state?
Tony,
Beautiful post. A Palestinian civil rights movement….now THAT’s something I’d support. How can I sign on?
Sadly, it is implicit in Rubenstein’s comments that such a movement is impossible at the present time, and that the reason is Hamas. Hamas is still determined to fight its “War on Israel”, and its refusal to even recognize Israel precludes a two-state solution. Israeli policy, meanwhile, is drifting rightward in a manner that is downright terrifying. Avigdor Lieberman, who favors ethnically cleansing Israeli Arabs, has been elected to a cabinet post. The calls to “carpet-bomb” Gaza grow louder by the day, and the next Israeli PM will probably be Netanyahu of Likud.
The combination of these two radical groups has always precluded peace. Remember, it was Ariel Sharon’s actions on Temple Mount that drove a stake through Oslo. But Arafat was no saint either. Given his refusal to renounce suicide bombings, one wonders if the way is shut because Arafat did not care to leave it open.
If, back in 2000, Palestinian youth had fought “brute force with soul force”, and had held hands and chanted Salaam instead of throwing stones, then bombing their Israeli cousins–things would be different now. Sharon’s trip to Temple Mount, which was designed to incite Palestinians and drive the Israeli electorate toward Likud, would have backfired and perhaps would have reignited the push for peace.
Tony,
Beautiful post. A Palestinian civil rights movement….now THAT’s something I’d support. How can I sign on?
Sadly, it is implicit in Rubenstein’s comments that such a movement is impossible at the present time, and that the reason is Hamas. Hamas is still determined to fight its “War on Israel”, and its refusal to even recognize Israel precludes a two-state solution. Israeli policy, meanwhile, is drifting rightward in a manner that is downright terrifying. Avigdor Lieberman, who favors ethnically cleansing Israeli Arabs, has been elected to a cabinet post. The calls to “carpet-bomb” Gaza grow louder by the day, and the next Israeli PM will probably be Netanyahu of Likud.
The combination of these two radical groups has always precluded peace. Remember, it was Ariel Sharon’s actions on Temple Mount that drove a stake through Oslo. But Arafat was no saint either. Given his refusal to renounce suicide bombings, one wonders if the way is shut because Arafat did not care to leave it open.
If, back in 2000, Palestinian youth had fought “brute force with soul force”, and had held hands and chanted Salaam instead of throwing stones, then bombing their Israeli cousins–things would be different now. Sharon’s trip to Temple Mount, which was designed to incite Palestinians and drive the Israeli electorate toward Likud, would have backfired and perhaps would have reignited the push for peace.
Pingback: How the Middle East “peace process” works… « The Heathlander
Shlomo’s contribution is rubbish. A soft version of blame the victim. Everybody gets together and sings ‘we shall overcome’ and the Israeli overlords break down in tears and recover their essential humanity. Zzzzz…
Sorry, Shlomo, but have to agree with the last post. Let’s not kid ourselves, the Palestinian refugees of 1948 driven out at gunpoint were not armed, and they did not leave voluntarily. Israel has never really recognized the humanity of the other (and in so doing has suppressed its own humanity). Even now, the idea of the refugees of 1948 returning in peace to live in Israel is flatly rejected as a mortal danger. So you can imagine what the Israelis would do if a group of unarmed refugees tried to cross the border and return to their homes. Israel thinks nothing of simply confiscating the land of ordinary Palestinian farmers and scattering them violently when they protest peacefully.
And the Israelis actually know they have provoked the Palestinians to violence and terror — Barak admitted as much, when during a TV interview in his 1999 election campaing, he was asked what he would have done if he’d been born Palestinian, and he said “Join a fighting organization.”
The Palestinians are legally entitled to resist as an occupied people in line with the Geneva convention. And, sad to say, it is precisely their capacity to violently disrupt the tranquility of Israeli life that got the Israelis to take them seriously in the first place.
It can certainly be argued that violence directed against civilians has not been an effective means of pursuing Palestinian national goals, precisely because it has confronted Israel where it is strongest. Unfortunately it is possible to argue the other side of that argument, too.
Obviously, both sides would be a lot better off if they could pursue their objectives peacefully. But the reason there is no peace is not because Hamas likes violence and the Palestinians haven’t embraced sayatraga.
Even in South Africa, where the principle of a single state was never in doubt, the violence of the state was answered by the violence of the liberation movement — although the ANC managed to largely avoid terrorism against white civilians.
And did you carefully read what Rubinstein is saying — a Palestinian movement for full democratic rights in the context of a single state. If you’re ready to sign on to that, you’re no longer a Zionist — except in the Martin Buber sense… 😉
Pingback: A Peace to End All Stable Referents § Unqualified Offerings
Tony,
When I said “Palestinian civil rights movement”, I was referring more generally to the idea of nonviolent protest using democratic methods, which is the attitude of Israeli Arabs. Nice try 😉
But do you agree or disagree with Rubenstein? He basically said that Hamas’ violent methods will fail them in the end, and that when that happens, they will do what I said–“Everybody gets together and sings ‘we shall overcome”. That will happen sooner or later, as Rubensten points out. Did YOU read Rubenstein carefully? He said it, I only repeated him. The only question is whether or not, in the next few decades, we will go through the motions of vicious conflict. Because if Palestinians embrace nonviolence now, when they have something to lose, it means a lot more than in thirty years from now.
Evan, BTW, I could care less about blame. It does not matter whose fault it is, only what each side can do to stop it. I pointed out what on both sides is preventing or inhibiting peace–including on the Israeli side. I “blamed” both the victim AND the perpetrator. but good job ignoring half my post. Looks like you were asleep in more ways than one. But don’t worry, in the coming years, there will be many more senseless deaths in the name of “martyrdom”. I just hope there’s something left to fight for when you wake up…
Shlomo,
Desmond Tutu once said: “If you are neutral between the oppressor and the oppressed, then you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
This is more than can be said about you. You pass some token criticism of Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount being unhelpful, but then lay into the Palestinian people as a whole for choosing violence. The occupation, the ethnic cleansing and everythin Israel has done in the last 60 years is not even an afterthought.
Also, about nonviolent resistance, the best argument AGAINST Palestinians using it, is that know-it-alls all over the world lecture them about it, not knowing that for decades the Palestinian resistance tried non-violence in all its forms. The fact that you haven’t heard of it tells you a lot about how effective non-violence is in the face of a despicable murder machine like the IDF. To all the hundreds of children, women and civilians murdered and injured in non-violence over the decades, your sanctimonious superiority-complex-riddled insight will sound like a really cruel joke.
Shlomo,
You said: “If, back in 2000, Palestinian youth had fought “brute force with soul force”, and had held hands and chanted Salaam instead of throwing stones…”
Two things would’ve happened:
1- not a single cameraman or journalist would’ve turned up and the world wouldn’t give a toss. The Palestinians can sing Salaam forever, but no one cares.
2- The Israeli soldiers would’ve shot them anyways, killed a few of them and then that would’ve made it to the bottom of page 17 in the NYT.
Sorry to pile on, Shlomo, but you have to ask yourself, is Israel really any more likely to adhere to international law by withdrawing to its 1967 borders if the Palestinians were using non-violent methods of resistance? Becuase that really is the issue — the occupation, not the methods used to resist it. The idea that the occupation continues BECAUSE of Palestinian resistance is one of the more preposterous Israeli propaganda claims out there. The fact is, as Alastair Crooke pointed out in a piece I’ve pointed to elsewhere, that when the Palestinians have refrained from violence, such as during the 1990s, and even more recent ceasefires, they have actually seen the occupation and the theft of their land INCREASE, not shrink.
Israel has yet to demonstrate any intention to abide by international law on the occupation. And when it does, it treats it like it’s either a matter of charity for Israel to decide (Barak’s famous “generous offer”, as in I steal your house, then I decide which rooms I’ll give back and which rooms I’ll keep, and expect you to thank me for my generosity…) or a poker game/haggling exercise. Thus, Olmert says the Arabs would really be surprised at how much he’s willing to offer, but he can’t say now. And Livni whines about how come the Palestinians are criticizing Israel when they don’t know what it’s prepared to offer as a deal — well, it’s not about how much Israel is prepared to offer, and it’s not a poker game. It’s about ending an occupation — Israel has no legitimate claim to any of the land it conquered in 1967; that surely is the starting point for negotiations. And if it wants to keep any of that land, it’ll have to offer some form of compensation or transfer of pre-67 Israeli land that the Palestinians accept. That has always been the principle of the two-state negotiations when they have been conducted in earnest, as opposed to the current theatrics.
Saif: “To all the hundreds of children, women and civilians murdered and injured in non-violence over the decades, your sanctimonious superiority-complex-riddled insight will sound like a really cruel joke.”
Tony: “Sorry to pile on, Shlomo, but you have to ask yourself, is Israel really any more likely to adhere to international law by withdrawing to its 1967 borders if the Palestinians were using non-violent methods of resistance?”
I have to say, thank you both for a truly enlightening conversation. You know, maybe you’re both right.
Maybe the way to raise awareness of the Palestinian cause really IS to detonate yourself in a room full of Passover celebrants. For that matter, maybe the best way to raise awareness of Islam’s grievances in general actually IS to hijack an airplane, and plunge it into a tall building in Manhattan. After all, the U.S. and Israel would ignore all forms of repression, except that the repressed have, as Tony said, a “capacity to violently disrupt the tranquility” of people’s lives. But how have the bombing victims responded?
Tony, about a month ago, you wrote about the wider implications of the West’s backing of Fatah, in the most profound piece I’ve read by you. You wrote about how there is a struggle for the heart and soul of Islamism, and about how the West, by its uncompromising actions, is actually driving Islamists to nihilism. Your underlying idea was basically that the choice was not between secularism and Islamism, as the West had thought, but between Hamas Islamist and Al Queda Islamism.
You should know is a similar struggle underway for Zionism right now. It is embodied by the fact that in the same Israeli election, Kadima won on a pro-“Ingathering” platform, and the Jewish fascist known as Avigdor Lieberman also gained seats. Yes, here the term is justified. This man, and I use the term loosely, favors the mass expulsion of all Arabs in Israel and in the Occupied Territories. He wants to make all the lands under dispute “Arab-rein”. Just as eighty years ago, Hitler’s Nazi party exploited fear of Communism to win his chancellorship and unleash his hell, today, genocidal radicals in Israel demonize Islam and Islamists to urge the utter anihilation of Gaza.
Tony, the choice is not between a Two-State Solution and a democratic, One-State Solution. It is increasingly a choice between a Two-State Solution and an increasingly brutal Occupation, if not a genocide. If the violence escalates again, this may happen. Probably, some Israelis will also suffer, and the rate of increase of settlements will slow. But Palestinians will face the worst, just as Lebanese did in the July War. The only reason why Gaza is not running with blood RIGHT NOW is Israeli restraint, and we are seeing worrying signs that this is coming to an end.
Saif,
First of all, get a grip. I just counted, and in my initial post, I had five sentences critical of Israel, and five critical of the Palestinians. It was EXACTLY even. So I guess your charges of my anti-Palestinian bias say more about you than about me.
Second, I absolutely despise the Occupation, and I think it should have ended thirty years ago. I am hardly neutral on this matter; the underlying premise of my post was that Palestinians should claim the rights due to them. When it comes to the Occupation, I am 100% on the side of the Palestinians, and in favor of ending this brutal apartheid. I only questioned the violent methods that Palestinians were using to this end. I personally do not think that violence helps a region already drenched with blood. It is blatantly obvious, even to strong Israel critics like Rubenstein, that at best a third Intifadah will achieve nothing for Palestinians, except more death.
Of course, there might not be any harm in trying it anyway. After all, what’s a few hundred dead Israeli partygoers? Or a few hundred Palestinian youth, dying sixty years too early because some ruthless sheikh convinced them to blow themselves up? Come to think of it, what’s a few thousand dead Americans?
Saif, you’ve told me before that America matters—that what Americans think about each side of this conflict will go a long way toward bringing justice for the Palestinians. Well, I wonder what they thought of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4XGyc8tAuk
Does this bother you? What do you expect Americans to think when Palestinians celebrate the worst disaster in the history of this country–a suicide bombing–and then go back to suicide-bombing Israeli civilians? Don’t you think Selma-style IDF massacre might strike Americans a little differently?
Tony and Saif, I see that neither one of you seem to mind promulgating the deaths of Palestinian teens. Wouldn’t it be better if they died in a Selma massacre, which would further a Palestinian state, as opposed to a Passover Massacre, which would further the destruction of Gaza? Or are you both so enraged at the atrocities of previous Israelis, that you would sacrifice the next generation of Palestinians so you could feel better?
Shlomo,
Please try to understand what Tony and I are saying before accusing us of being bloodthirsty criminals.
Neither I nor Tony condone suicide bombings; and personally I do not think violence is the answer. I would think you know me better. I was not criticizing you because I think Palestinians should continue dying and killing Israelis; I was criticizing you because you have the audacity, sitting in New York, to attribute the problem in Palestine to Palestinians not resorting to holding hands and singing when they’re being killed. This is not to call for more murder and bloodshed, this is to call for keeping focused on what the real problem is: Israeli occupation, racism and oppression. I am not telling you to support suicide bombings; I’m telling you to be rational, reasonable and honest enough to identify the real problem and talk about it; not take cheap shots at Palestinians for not conforming to your idealized romantic vision of how they should oppose their 6 decade suppression.
Criticizing the victim for not taking their suppression lying down and singing hand in hand is just offensive racist colonialist nonsense. The fact that I think it is nonsense does not mean that I support the death of Israeli and Palestinian teenagers. That is self-evident to anyone who would take a second to think about what I said; but unfortunately, it seems I need to spell it out for you.
Whatever blacks did under apartheid, whatever methods they resorted to, does not change the fact that apartheid needed to end. Similarly, whatever the Black Panthers did in America, does not change the fact that segregation needs to end. To blame the ANC’s terrorist and sabotage acts for apartheid; or the Black Panther’s attacks for segregation is not unprincipled, it’s downright idiotic. Unfortunately, this is exactly what you’re doing here. And please don’t give me the “5 sentences each” bullsh1t; for that, please refer to the Tutu quote.
Finally, you said: “Tony and Saif, I see that neither one of you seem to mind promulgating the deaths of Palestinian teens.” This is the first time in my life that someone has had the audacity to accuse me of “promulgating the deaths” of anyone, let alone Palestinians, of whom my brother is a teenager. That you would say this is frankly too absurd for me to even be offended.
In all honesty, I am really surprised I took the time to answer to an accusation of promulgating death. As I told you before, I make it a point to never dignify nonsense with an answer on the internet; I never thought that the worst nonsense I would ever read would come from you, though.
Saif,
I am beginning to see what you mean. The burden is primarily on the Israelis, because they hold power. If the Israelis (especially settlers) begin to respect Palestinian human rights, and withdraw to Israel proper, the conflict is largely over. The Palestinians set up a state, and Israelis live happily in their state. However, if Palestinians stop, the situation will continue to worsen dramatically for them.
I am truly sorry for offending you. You should know that just as you have never heard accusations like this, I have never made accusations like this before. I know that you are a peace-loving individual, and that you have a strong sense of both justice and humanity. That is exactly why I’ve found your last two comments so profoundly saddening.
As I have said, there is a rising trend of vicious radicalism on both the Israeli and Palestinian side, and the two trends are mutually reinforcing. These trends deeply disturb me, because if the trends continue, they will do to Israelis what no suicide bomber can, and do to Palestinians what no IDF soldier can: poison Israelis and Palestinians starting from the inside. If this poison gets strong enough–if the grandchildren of Auschwitz survivors continue to call for genocide, and the grandchildren of Nakhba survivors continue to live to die—it won’t even matter which side ends up with this or that piece of territory. Everyone will lose, no matter who “wins”.
You say you do not condone suicide bombings, but you don’t seem so sure of yourself:
“…PERSONALLY I do not think violence is the answer.” (Emphasis mine)
“…not take cheap shots at Palestinians for not conforming to you idealized romantic vision…”
“Criticizing the victim for not taking their suppression lying down…”
I can try to protect Palestinians from the Israeli brutality. Only you can protect them from themselves. Based on the above quotes, you seem to have only minor interest in doing that. So you’re against violence PERSONALLY? Like this is a personal choice here?! I prefer peanut butter, and you prefer nonviolence? It is very disturbing to me that even you do not see the danger. That is the only reason why you would see a post like that coming from me.
Just to clarify, when I say “nonviolence”, I do not mean it as a synonym for acquiescence or nonresistance. I am using it as a shorthand for nonviolent RESISTANCE, which I am totally in favor of, to the point that I almost went to the Palestinian territories this year if not for logistical issues. You know, Saif, Mahatma Gandhi preached nonviolence. Was he a colonialist? MLK preached nonviolence. Was he a racist? Both of these leaders certainly had visions, but they weren’t idealized and romantic—they WORKED. Arguably, they worked better than violence, not only for the oppressors, but also for the oppressed.
Shlomo,
Your first paragraph is EXACTLY what I mean. Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I could.
As for the ‘Personally’; this means to signify that I am speaking for myself, because I can only speak for myself; it is not to signify any of the over-interpretations you mention.
And more importantly, I do NOT think nonviolence is bad; I wish I had an enemy with enough sense of humanism so that my nonviolence resistance COULD possibly work. In this respect, the British colonialists in India, American segregationists in the South and whites in Apartheid South Africa are really much superior to the Israelis because they never fought the oppressed’s nonviolence resistance with the same criminality that Israelis have targetted Palestinian nonviolence.
You assume that there is NO nonviolence in Palestine; that is really ignorant. There is a very long tradition of nonviolence resistance being met by overwhelming power and brutality, this goes back to the British and Zionist gangs in the 1930’s quelling strikes with violence, and extends all the way through to EVERY Friday for the last few years, where nonviolent demonstrators take to the wall near Bilin in an attempt to stop it. And every week dozens of them are injured by Israeli bullets. And of course, you can not forget the enormously long tradition of nonviolence in the West Bank and Gaza from the 1970’s to 80’s, through the first Intifada when Israel responded with brutal murder, assassinations and Rabin’s favourite pastime “bone-breaking”.
The tragedy of this is not just that non-violent Palestinian protestors get killed by a brutal cold-blooded army, but that this army’s murderous crimes make sure that the news is only reported as “clashes” and then people like you think that there is NO such thing as Palestinian nonviolence, and then dare to say that “if only the Palestinians held hands and sang” then things would be solved. If only.
This is getting really overheated — first, Saif, not sure what your South African example is all about above — the regime very much answered non-violence with violence (Sharpeville, Soweto and other massacres) which was precisely why the liberation movement had an armed component starting in 1961, and ending only when the regime accepted majority rule.
But Shlomo, you’re getting all overheated about hypotheticals. Nobody thinks violence is good, or even does any good. But I think you’re burying your head on the question of just how much Israel has created this situation, and done so by means of violence — and maintained it by its ability to muster overwhelming force. You only have to look at the debate over the refugees in any peace agreement to understand how this principle works. The Israelis say any move to have the Palestinian refugees return to their homes to live peacefully alongside the Israeli Jews is a “mortal threat” to Israel’s survival as a Jewish state. There you have it, buddy, in as many words — Palestinian political demands are, in themselves, whether expressed peacefully or violently, deemed a mortal threat, and people who have an advantage in the means of force, tend to resort to “mortal threats” by bringing it to bear.
There actually is a non-violent Palestinian resistance movement which, together with Israeli peaceniks, constantly campaigns against the wall, etc. But you don’t hear much about it. Sure, I’d like to see more of that, because I think it’s a lot more difficult for Israel to counter that with violence, although it probably would, anyway, because the fact of this resistance would be deemed a “mortal threat.”
I don’t think terrorism (violence committed against civilians for political ends) is going to get the Palestinian people their liberation, but I can’t argue with the analysis that says it was precisely their resort to spectacular terrorism that actually got the Palestinians first noticed in international public opinion in the early 70s, when Golda was still saying “there are no Palestinians.”
And you have to put yourself in the position of despair facing the Palestinains to understand their choices. Ehud Barak did, in a rare moment of candor in his 99 election campaign, when a TV interviewer asked what he’d have done if he’d been born Palestinian, and he instantly answered “Join a fighting organization.” Of course he would have. Burg, too, has sought to understand the phenomenon of suicide bombing as a response to a situation of desperate despair. That’s really all we’re saying.
And frankly, I don’t see much evidence to support your belief that the Israelis would alter their strategic positions (as opposed to tactical responses) based on whether the Palestinians were using non-violence.
Saif,
What you said about the history of nonviolence makes sense, but SOURCES! I need SOURCES!! No one who needs to believe this will take your word for it!
While I wait for those, I still want to question that the Palestinian radicals’ ruthless acts have absolutely no effect on the larger situation, whatsoever.
You can’t ignore the larger context of the terror attacks, which Hamas claims are for the narrow purpose of ending the “Occupation” (In West Bank + Gaza? All Israel? Not clear!!). I just read Hamas’ charter, and they say that they would welcome me as a dhimmi under the caliphate, but they also talk of “cleansing” Zionists from the land. That makes me uneasy. Does this mean just defeating the Zionists, or is it literally a CLEANSING, as in an ethnic cleansing avenging 1948? There are lots of these charming ambiguities in the charter–as there are on this web site, actually.
But maybe I am flipping out, and everyone here really is nice and humanist, and Hamas just wants to get the land back. If this is true, then once the IDF stops fighting, Hamas will form the Caliphate of Israel-Palestine, and everyone is happy, right? All the radical cranks can’t ruin Mideast peace, right?
WRONG. Ignoring for a moment that Israelis don’t want to be second-class citizens, it is unlikely the Hamas Revolution would stop when Hamas says. As we are increasingly discovering, radical Islamism does not come with a spigot; you can’t turn it on and off on command.
Example: Hamas and Fatah wore ski masks in the Gaza civil war. I know they do this when fighting the IDF to look tough and avoid retaliation, but why masks among their own people? To kill with impunity? Radicalism has no spigot.
Another example: During the civil war, Ismael Haniya asked the military wing of Hamas to stop fighting Fatah–and the military wing told him to screw off! After this, Haniya backed down.
That’s only the Palestinians. If we move to the Arab World as a whole, there’s the insanity of Iraq, Nahir al-Bered–and now Pakistan. In all three locations, there are invididuals willing to kill EVERYONE so the last guy standing can wave his little crescent flag.
Saif, this is still not as clear as you and Tony make it to be. If Israel gives up the West Bank, many Palestinians will be happy to turn over their weapons. Others will take aim at Tel Aviv. Worse yet, if peace-loving Palestinians like you try and stop them, they’ll go after YOU, too. They’ll start shooting people in their underwear, and throwing them off rooftops again. Then what?
Tony,
From about 1860 (The Damascus Affair) and onward to 1948, antisemitic progroms were common throughout the Arab World, including Israel/Palestine. When Israel was established in 1948, it was immediately attacked. Then it was attacked again. And again. Then it captured the Palestinian Territories, and within a few years Palestinians were launching spectacular terrorist attacks. So yes, “mortal threat”. Ever since Arab nationalism really got going, Jews have been getting whupped. I honestly think that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank–and that’s it. Set up a little confederation or something if you like, but for practical reasons I understand why Israel is again Palestinan right of return.
Also, refer to my comments to Saif above…what’s to stop Hamas’ military wing from picking up the pogroms where the early Palestinians left off?
Also, it’s not precisely true that suicide bombing is a response to Palestinian despair. There are demagogue Sheikhs involved, who capitalize on grassroots despair to spread misery and gain power. But yes, I knew that suicide bombings and Palestinian despair were related. But that’s unacceptable to me, because I am not yet ready to give up on the next generation of Palestinian youth. Something must be done. That’s all I’M saying. (And of course, I don’t like seeing my Jewish brothers get blown to pieces, but I’ve been told that that’s “besides the point”.)
I wanted to comment and thank the author, good stuff
I don’t accept as true with anything with this posting, but you do make some extremely good details. Im very interested from this matter and I other people do alot of investigation all at once. Either way it was an adequately thoughtout and nice study thus figured I would leave which you comment. Really feel totally free to verify out my internet site sometime and let me understand you think.
jlwy.com
I know this website gives quality depending content and extra material, is there any other web page which provides such information in quality?|