Will Obama get tough with Israel?
The Israeli political commentator and former government adviser Daniel Levy draws attention to a report from the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution that suggests the next US administration should "press Israel to freeze settlement construction" by threatening to withhold some of its aid if settlement-building continues.
His comments come after widespread condemnation in the Israeli press of attacks by settlers against Palestinians after the Israeli army moved to evict settlers from a house in the flashpoint West Bank town of Hebron. (There's video footage of some of that violence here.)
One report in Haaretz described the violence as "out and out pogroms". Haaretz also reports that the Israeli security forces are now preparing for a "wave of violence by extremist West Bank settlers".
But here's the thing: Israel goes to the polls in February and the opinion polls suggest the right-wing Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu will win. He is unlikely to take kindly to any suggestion from Mr Obama that US aid could be tied to a settlement freeze.
So could this become one of the new US President's first big foreign policy challenges? I wonder if secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton has already booked her ticket to Tel Aviv.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
How long should we allow the Palestinians to suffer? If they lived in a different part of the world, would the international community allowed this to happen?
Complain about this comment
"Binyamin Netanyahu will win . . . is unlikely to take kindly to any suggestion from Mr Obama that US aid could be tied to a settlement freeze".
One is tempted to ask who's money it is. Mr. Netanyahu will have two choices - take the money on the terms offered or manage without it - unless in the modern age you are allowed to set terms before accepting hand-outs.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone out there read the Bible, Gods Word to us today. Israel was given to the Israelites, as the Promise Land, for the Jews,in the time of Moses that great man of God. God led the Israelites through the desert to settle in their promised land, Israel. The whole of the Middle East has its own Muslim communities, and can the Jews but only be left alone to life in peace. Sadly no! They are getting rockets fired at them on a regular basis, but this is not reported on at all! We were once a Christian Nation, and now we are a multi-cultural Nation which is great! But let us not loose hold of our Christian roots! & the fact that even through the world wars there was emphasis that it was God who gave us the victory! Have the Jews not gone through enough, been persecuted enough, been attacked enough! Let's just leave Israel alone! May Obama stick up for Israel, in God's Holy Name!
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to Mr. Lustig for opening a necessary topic, despite the predictable consequences!
Today, a very experienced Zionist has written an open letter to President-elect Obama on just this topic. Mr. Lustig, and all others interested, should download and save it.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1228602649
One must look at things from the standpoint of an Israeli politician. The creation of a viable Palestinian state is a necessity. The settlements must all be removed. If that is made a condition for any continuation of US aid, then an Israeli politician will have an easier sell.
Complain about this comment
LesMajestey,
Everybody agrees that a viable Palestine state is necessary. The problem is however what is meant by viable. I read the open letter you have given a link to- in my opinion many of the proposals in there are not viable. Divide Jerusalem, bulid a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank, give compensations to refugees, give them choice of where to return?! All of these are difficult, if not impossible to achieve. The refugees are refugees precisely because they cannot return anywhere. Israel woul not accept a large number of Palestinians, they cannot go to any of the neighbouring countries (if they could they would have gone long ago) and the option will be to still live in those two divided territories they live today, with Israel in between. The gaza strip in particular will never be viable as a state, regardles whether is linked with the West bank or not. OK, the building of new settlments must stop, but I do not think Israel will ever withdraw from the Golan heights in return for some vague promises from Syria. I personally believe that there will be some sort of two-state agreement, however I do not think it will be viable for long.
Complain about this comment
#5 Isenhorn:
A viable Palestinian state would have all territory contiguous, with sovereign international air, sea and land access.
Tim Sebastien, on HARDTALK, had several weeks of top level discussions on how to achieve this.
Of course, compensation instead of the right of return to Israel proper must be arranged. Note that one cannot bring lands other than Israel and Palestine into this equation.
Before Sharon began his attacks, Palestine was doing rather well economically. His policy was to destroy and fragment Palestine into enclaves, bringing in settlers as fast as possible. These settlements must be removed. Essentially, there must be a return to the 1967 borders.
Jeruselem may need to be internationalized, but the arrangements are possible.
At the moment, talks about the Golan are undergoing. Essentially, Israel seeks a neutral Syria in exchange for a return of the Golan.
With an advent of Netanyahu, massive and serious USA pressure would be required for any peace.
Complain about this comment
LesMajestey,
Return to pre-1967 borders still does not allow for continuous land link between Gaza and the West bank. Those two territories were not one entity before the 1967 war- Gaza was Egiptian territory, whereas the West bank was part of Jordan. If they are to be linked by land that will mean a re-drawing of the 1967 borders. And without that Gaza will never be a proper country and the Palestines living there will have to once again rely on Israel for jobs. On its own Gaza will not last long and might eventually merge with Egypt.
With Hezbolah still very much active in Lebanon I do not think Israel will give up the Golans. After all Hezbolah is supported by Iran as well as by Syria and with both countries being part of the 'Axis of evil', Israel will want to keep a strategic foothold and a buffer in case of future conflicts. I do not know about the negotiations with Syria, but the Israeli bombing raids inside Syrian territory show that Israel is still very concerned about the intentions of its neighbour.
Complain about this comment
#7 Isenhorn
My view is that the people there, in Israel and Palestine, know far better than we how to reach an accomodation. Sebatien's debates illustrate this.
The blockage is that Israel seeks to use force to overwhelm and ethnically clease the Palestinians. Except for suicide attackers, Palestine has no force to respond.
My belief is that the majority of people in Israel favor a peace settlement, but that their disgust with the corruption of the Israeli government has turned them off from the political process.
Only real pressure, e.g. stopping all aid by the USA, can force Israel to reach a just settlement with the Palestinians.
Without this, Israel will continue the policy (which meets the definition of genocide).
Complain about this comment
It never cease to amaze me how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights continues to be ignored and flouted. It was passed by the UN on December 10, 1948 ad promptly ignored about 60 years ago, roughly the same length of time that Israel has existed!
To Zionists I would ask why they continue to deny Human Rights to Palestinians and vice versa.
It might help if the USA granted Human Rights to anybody outside the USA too!
I am not holding my breath!
Complain about this comment
#9 John from Hendon
There are a lot of words coming from UN organizations, but virually none of it has the force of a law to be equally applied to all nations. That would require a surrender of some sovereignty to a supranational organization.
Genocide is closer to having that enforceable status. The intent to eliminate a people, coupled with a specific action, such as their forcible transfer, constitutes genocide.
In the present example, many on both sides feel that the other side intends genocide. Only one side has taken the specific state-organized action.
Complain about this comment
LesMajestey,
You say that the people in Israel and Palestine know better how to reach peace. I tend to disagree- if they knew better, they would have done that long ago. In particular, voting for Hamas and for right-wing Israeli parties is not going to bring peace in the region anytime soon.
The two-state sollution is neither new, nor is universally accepted. The idea originally appeared in the 1940s, during the British mandate of Palestine. At that time it was the Arab League countries that rejected the idea. Then the Palestinians were not treated fairly even by their allies- the Arab states. After the creation of Israel and the exchange of populations, Israel accepted the expelled Jews from the Arab countries, whereas the Palestinians were kept in refugee camps in the Gaza strip and the West bank (then not part of Israel). Even now they are not really accepted anywhere- Egypt for example does not accept Pallestinians workers in any sizeable numbers from the Gaza strip.
It is all OK talking about peace and two-state sollution, but the difficulties are many and only putting the blame on Israel is not going to solve anything.
Complain about this comment
# 11 Isenhorn
The extremist parties on both sides have little hope of peace.
The leaders of those who do wish for peace know far better than we the territorial accomodations that are feasible.
[I wish that the particular HARDTALK series could be made available to those who are interested here].
It is quite true that the Palestinians are accepted nowhere. Thus, they must try to cling to what is left for them of their own country.
The key to a solution lies with the USA and Israel. With its overwhelming power, Israel will continue with the ethnic cleansing (technically, genocide) begun in 1948. The USA has to withhold funding and military support to try and force removal of the settlements.
A substantial percentage of Israelis would accept the Arab (1967 borders) Proposal, but the level of political participation by moderates has been very weak.
The Zionist referred to in the URL above says that Israel needs its own Obama!
Although I understand the various views of both sides, the key to the solution lies with Israel, not with the Palestinians.
Complain about this comment
"He is unlikely to take kindly to any suggestion from Mr Obama that US aid could be tied to a settlement freeze."
My heart is breaking. If the money keeps flowing that would be an implicit endorsement by Obama of the policy of building settlements on land nicked by force.
Cazstone - yeah, right, play the old 'god' card there... - I'm sure that those on the other side of the fence think that their 'god' views things rather differently.
So since you clearly cannot agree on that, can't you just agree that this land doesn't belong to you, and stop antagonising the whole situation by building more settlements and putting populations on land that doesn't belong to them.
Then you might be able to sit down and negotiate a solution which provides peace and security for all the peoples of the mid east - they are all equal in the eyes of their creator, after all...
Complain about this comment
obama, should be careful when its comes to israel....
Complain about this comment
For those able to receive it, the BBC's HARDTALK has a program bearing on this issue available all week:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g3x3d/HARDtalk_Martti_Ahtisaari/
Complain about this comment
We can only hope that in Obama we will see a US President who will be even handed in his dealings with the Palestinians and the Israeli Government. We have had years of US bias due to the power of the Jewish vote and now is the opportunity to give the Palestinians their rights acknowledged by past UN Security Council decisions and allow Israel and the Palestinians to live in viable secure states.
Complain about this comment
"Will Obama get tough with Israel?"
Implicit in the question is the notion that someone should get tough with Israel as some kind of "solution" to the conflict.
Now how about this for a question:
"Will Obama get tough with the Palestinians?"
Can anyone point to one compromise the Palestinians have made in all the years that peace negotiations have been proposed and entered into? Truth is, the Palestinians can get away with no concessions to peace whatsoever because everyone has been insisting that Israel bears all the blame for the conflict.
12. LesMajestey,
Funny your comments bear an uncanny resemblance to those of Xie Ming, who has been very quiet indeed for a few weeks. Same old anti-Semitic rubbish about the Israelis practicing "genocide." Same tired old insistence that everyone follow your links and accept your propaganda.
Could it be that you have been banned and have simply assumed a new identity? You wouldn't be that dishonourable would you?
Complain about this comment
Truth is, Israel doesn't want Peace. Zionists in their own words.Truth is unknown to True Too.
Peace and Truth
ed
Complain about this comment
18. Ed Iglehart wrote:
Israel doesn't want Peace.
Usual biased nonsense from you. Israel is a complex society with many shades of political opinion, some even as anti-Israel as yours. I suppose next thing you'll claim that Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, wants peace.
I come back to my original point: Let's ask whether Obama will get tough with the Palestinians. It's about time someone in the West did.
Complain about this comment
TT, You're right. It's time the Palestinians stopped having it so easy. Time to destroy some more of their remaining sewers and power plants and starve them a bit more.
Complain about this comment
20 Ed Iglehart,
Did you know that Hamas uses sewer pipes to construct Kassam rockets to fire at Israeli civilians? What do you think that does to the sewage system? I guess that doesn't enter your frame of reference. Did you know that the collapse at those sewage dams that flooded the village and killed people was a direct result of the Palestinian leaders putting the money for the upgrading of the facilities into their own pockets? No, I guess not. And I'm sure you only notice when Israel blocks the aid convoys but shut your eyes when Israel reopens them again.
You expect it to be business as usual while the terrorists carry on terrorising Israeli civilians living near, and not so near, Gaza. Any other country faced with a similar situation would be much more extreme in their reaction to the terror. You know that but your gross bias against Israel prevents you from admitting it.
Now I expect you to turn your withering scorn on the Egyptians and ask why they are not supplying Gazans with food aid via convoys of trucks through the Rafah crossing. I expect you'll soon be accusing them of "starving" the Palestinians. Anything less would be hypocritical right?
You are too biased to debate with your eyes open.
Complain about this comment
#21 TrueToo
You are too biased to debate with your eyes open.
That is incredibly rich, even by your standards!
Complain about this comment
The question that Mr. Lustig has posed: "Should Obama get tough with Israel?" is, indeed, a valid one.
All involved in the news media are well-aware of the influence over US policy exercised by what is called the "Israel Lobby". Essentially, the Congressmen are greatly influenced by the power and funding arranged by such organizations as AIPAC. Two distinguished academics, Mearsheimer and Walt, produced a study of this influence which is easily downloadable, from, inter alia, the Harvard website.
The earlier dozen or so postings on this thread discussed this topic in a civilized fashion, without invoking tactics of personal abuse and innuendo. Perhaps the moderators will seek a return to this form of discourse.
Genocide has been officially defined. It is a matter of intent, rather than of body count. The intent must be accompanied by one of five specified actions, one of which is the forced transfer of a population.
There is not a shred of historical doubt concerning the forced transfer, accompanied by killing, of 500,000 to 700,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948. An examination of the subsequent actions by Israel illustrates the methodical reduction to grinding poverty, without water or medical access, of the remaining Palestinian population by the Israelis. It has been suggested that they move to Jordan.
Even this week, Tipi Livini, candidate for PM (against the infamous rightist Netanyahu),says that even those Palestinians who are Israeli citizens should move to Palestine should a Palestinian state be created. (An article concerning this appears on the BBC Mid East section).
As discussed above, peace in the area requires the removal of the illegal settlements that Israel has been fostering beyond the 1967 borders. If the USA were to withhold its three billion a year cash donations, its 10 billion loan guarantees and all military aid, then, possibly, the Israeli government would discover that withdrawal of the settlements is, indeed, possible. And , that could lead to peace.
Yes, Mr. Lustig, Obama should "get tough with Israel, but, given the influence of the Israel Lobby in the USA, would he?
Complain about this comment
22. dceilar,
Respond to the points I raised, otherwise why bother to make a comment?
Unless of course you have no response and no rebuttal, which is probably the case.
Complain about this comment
# 9 John from Herndon
Your mention of Human Rights brings to mind the "Right to Protect" and conventions concerning genocide.
As many have noted, UN Resolutions are often flouted by sovereign states.
Despite the present weak state of international law, the convention against genocide is relatively strong.
Perhaps one of our BBC blogs might look into this general area of the organized abuse of human beings on an ethnic basis by states.
Complain about this comment
Here's the banned Xie_Ming posting lies and propaganda again with renewed energy as LesMajestey.
The vast majority of the Palestinians left the nascent state of Israel in 1948 at the urging of their own leaders. Later those leaders shifted the blame onto the armies of the Arab states, saying they had urged the Palestinians to leave. But whatever the case, there are plenty reports from the time proving that they had been urged to leave to make way for the Arab armies so they could "drive the Jews into the sea," after which time they would be able to return and claim the vacated property of the Jews.
And Ming's talk of "genocide" simply proves that he either doesn't know what genocide is or doesn't know anything about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Actually it's probably a bit of both, with a generous portion of bias against Jews thrown in.
Amazing how the Arab population of Palestine and Israel has increased by leaps and bounds in the face of this "genocide."
Complain about this comment
#21 TrueToo
Now I expect you to turn your withering scorn on the Egyptians and ask why they are not supplying Gazans with food aid via convoys of trucks through the Rafah crossing. I expect you'll soon be accusing them of "starving" the Palestinians. Anything less would be hypocritical right?
A link by Ed @ 20:
That's why Egypt are not supplying Gaza: It's still Israel! Why aren't Israel doing supplying Gaza?
Complain about this comment
# 9 John from Herndon
Ed did provide some links to the following concernng the legal status of the "Right to Protect"
SC Resolution 1674 regarding R2P, Resolution 1265 also applies, as does UNSC 1296.
Perhaps Ed or someone else can post useable links to those resolutions here.
It appears as though there may be general interest in the Genocide Convention and we should get the necessary links published.
Complain about this comment
#9 John from Herndon
To get started on the definition of genocide:
The first thing to note is that genocide is a matter of intent, rather than body count.
The second is that forcible transfer is considered genocide/
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity?
The forcible transfer of children is one of the five acts.
We will need to clearly and explicitly identify the definition of genocide and save the pertininent documents.
Complain about this comment
#9 John
Here is the full text of the Convention Against Geocide:
http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
Now, you have mentioned the Declaration of Human Rights, and there is much current discussion about the Right or Duty to Protect.
Questions have been raised denying the actions of Israeli forces in 1948. It may be necessary to provide sufficient documentation so that honest folk can note and save the facts.
The policy of the last 60 years oppressing the Palestinians has been documented on a weekly basis, and this documentation is available from both Israeli and Palestinian organizations.
Netanyahu has been explicit in that he "did not wish to rule over a single Palestinian" and Tipi Livini has suggested the transfer of even all Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent to any Palestinian state.
We should note that she did not say forcible transfer.
The ethnic policy of the Israelis is clear and their intent is evident. I believe that, when we have looked at the law and the evidence, we will conclude that Israel's policy of ethnic cleansing meets the definition of genocide.
Complain about this comment
27. dceilar,
Israel retains control over the air and sea to limit the influx of weapons and terrorists into Gaza and thus limit the terror emanating from the strip. But Gaza is not Israel, though for many centuries it was a productive centre of Jewish life. Gaza is Gaza and currently has no status as the state of Palestine has not been declared. Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in line with the demands of the "international community" and was met with the immediate resumption of rocket fire from terrorists at Israeli civilians.
Currently Gaza has a sort of informal status as a place run and "democratically" controlled by one of the world's worst terrorist organisations, namely the Islamist Hamas. The BBC and other media continually try to downplay the nature of Hamas by implying that only Israel regards it as a terrorist group. In fact the US and the countries of the EU also list Hamas as a terrorist group. And if you dig a bit deeper, you'll find plenty of other countries that know what Hamas is, the latter having proved what it is by the deliberate singling out and slaughter of innocent Israelis.
The solution is really simple. Hamas has to change its Charter, which currently calls for the destruction of Israel - i.e. the murder of as many Jews as possible and the enslavement or expulsion of the rest - and stop its terror attacks. Then, and only then will there be a prospect of peace and a Palestinian state.
Complain about this comment
27. dceilar,
Another point or two - you ask why Israel is not supplying Gaza. Israel is supplying Gaza but that process is continually interrupted by the terror attacks from Gaza. UNRWA is the main supplier of aid through Israel to the Palestinians - who are the only people on earth who have continual refugee status from generation to generation. It suits the Arab governments to keep them in this state so they will continue to be a thorn in Israel's side and a fertile recruiting ground for terrorists.
These facts expose the agenda here of Ed Ingehart and the other anti-Israel propagandists.
Complain about this comment
#29
It says "Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Did Israel do that? If you want genocide then have a look at Hamas's charter. They want to destroy Israel and they definitely kill Israelis. So im gonna say that the Palestinians are comitting genocide. And im doing a little less misquoting than you are.
Complain about this comment
Robin Lustig, here's a question for you:
Will the BBC ever pose the question of whether Obama will get tough with the Palestinians and remind them of their obligations under the peace process.
Funnily enough, I have a feeling that he will. If he does, it will be the first time that many in the BBC will come to know that the Palestinians, and not just the Israelis, actually do have obligations under the peace process.
33. luacene,
It's an old trick of the banned Xie_Ming, now posting as LesMajestey: It all looks very impressive - the links and the authoritative quotes - but of course Israel's defence against Palestinian terror can never be described as "genocide," or "ethnic cleansing."
He probably knows that, but carries on flinging copy and paste mud around in the hope that some of it will stick.
Complain about this comment
TrueToo
Your bigoted sophistry impresses no-one but yourself and others who support the European colonialism that's occurring there! You do not debate, you lecture and insult people who do not share your world-view. I've seen the ugly face anti-Semitism, it's anti rational, violent, and very scary. I have not seen a post that matches anti-Semitism on this site. When are you to apologise to LesMajestey for calling him/her anti-Semite and to others who you disagree with.
Complain about this comment
# 33 Luacene
You mention the "forcible transfer of children" and ask "did Israel do that?".
Yes, they forced out whole familes so fast that the dinner pots were still warm on the stoves and the family photos still on display when the Israeli soldiers kicked their way in.
If you have time, do read some of the URLs that have been mentioned.
_____________________________
This is from the Convention on Genocide (the URL is above):
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(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 transferring children of the group to another group.
Now, I can give examples of (a) through (d). But, since (e) says "transfering children to another group, you are correct, I do not know of that being done.
Complain about this comment
35. dceilar,
The hundreds of thousands of Jews who were driven out of Arab countries before and after 1948 with only the shirts on their backs would be amazed to discover that they are guilty of "European colonialism," having never set foot in Europe.
And the descendants of those Jews who had never left the Holy Land throughout the centuries of invasion and conquest by others would also be wondering about the colonial label the anti-Israel crowd want to stick on them.
I note that insulting me is a transparent attempt on your part to cover up your inability to debate the issues that have been raised here. Since you seem to be quite passionate about the Israeli-Arab conflict, why not study it a bit - then you would perhaps be able to hold up your end of the debate, rather than relying on the likes of Xie_Ming/Les Majestey and Ed Ingehart for anti-Israel propaganda disguised as fact to help you make your point.
Complain about this comment
"Anti-Israel propaganda disguised as fact", mostly from Jewish sources, the UN, and, of course, the anti-semitic BBC, and, for those who wish to learn the attitudes of Zionists, from their own mouths...
Zionists are their own worst enemies, and TT is no exception.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
LesMajestey (28),
Here you go!Peace and the best international organisation we have
ed
Complain about this comment
# 38 Ed
Ed has furnished an important link that anyone interested should download and save in "from their own mouths".
The "Truth against Truth" is written from a Zionist Gush-Shalom slant, but it is factual and nobody can challenge the credentials and reputation of the author (Uri Avnery)
who was a Revisionist Zionist.
The document is written for Israelis, by Israelis.
Complain about this comment
TrueToo, here's a question for you,
To try and cut through the anti-Israel propaganda disguised as fact:
What are your criticisms of Israel throughout its long history?
Complain about this comment
38. Here's Ed Iglehart hiding behind his anti-Israel propaganda, as usual, as a substitute for debate:
In 1946/7, at the end of the British Mandate, the population of Palestine was one third Jewish and two thirds Arab (1946 census). The Majority Arab population rejected the UN partition plans, which were, none the less IMPOSED against this expressed will by a UN vote in which all the local UN members dissented, and the British abstained.
Which ignores the fact that The Jews were in the majority in the areas set aside for the Jewish part of the proposed 1947 partition; and of course also ignores the fact that the British were mandated to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and also ignores the fact that the reason the Arabs rejected partition was that they were confident they could destroy the Jews. In this, they were armed and encouraged by the British, some of whom actually led Jordanian troops in the 1948 war, in complete violation of their Mandate.
I've popped this particular anti-Israel bubble of Ed Ingehart, but like all propagandists he digs up the discredited info in the hope that if you repeat it long enough it will stick.
41._marko,
I have a few, but they are not related to the Israeli-Arab conflict and not relevant to this discussion. Do you have any criticism of the Palestinians?
Back to the point under discussion: Hopefully Obama understands the Palestinian obsession to destroy Israel and will get tough with them and demand that they at least make some small concession towards a culture of peace. It's high time someone did.
Complain about this comment
It would be good to have press contact information for leading BBC personnel.
Complain about this comment
The Other Israel
Newsletter of the Israeli Struggle for Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Holon, December 14, 2008
Dear Mr. Lustig:
There is a variety of peace and human rights groups in Israel, together forming the network of the Israeli peace movement.
With all their ideological differences (as there can exist between left-Zionists, non-Zionists, anti-Zionists, Socialists, Anarchists, Liberals), what they have in common is that they are all seeking peace through finding the common ground, wanting to bring the occupation to an end, and achieving equality and justice for all in this region..
We welcome contacts from those who wish to know the truth ? and let it be known - and share our struggle. We think we have a task to fulfill, to report what we witness, and to make our protest be known. In this way we hope to encourage others to stop looking the other way and involve themselves more - and thus protect Israelis and Palestinians from themselves. Without serious involvement of world public opinion the forces from within alone may not be able to end the lethal Israeli-Palestinian embrace in time.
So, please subscribe to our email list and feel free to contact us for views.
yours
Adam Keller
Beate Zilversmidt
Editors The Other Israel newsletter
otherisr@actcom.co.il
Complain about this comment
TT,
that's right - a 55% majority of a gerrymandered partition which was only achieved by cutting out the "enclave" of Arab Jaffa. "Here's the map
Read the Partition Resolution
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
TT,
LOL!
Complain about this comment
In contrast to some of the absurd assertions earlier in this thread, here is a story from a real expert, and one who was there, 60 years ago:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1210454063/
1948
. I categorize it as an "ethnic war".
...It must be understood that at no stage did the Arabs "flee the country".
In general, things happened this way: in the course of the fighting, an Arab village came under heavy fire. Its inhabitants - men, women and children - fled, of course, to the next village.
Then we fired on the next village, and they fled to the next one, and so forth, until the armistice came into force and suddenly there was a border (the Green Line) between them and their homes.
The Deir Yassin massacre gave another powerful push to the flight.
When was the start of the "ethnic cleansing" you spoke about?
In the second half of the war, after the advance of the Arab armies was halted, a deliberate policy of expelling the Arabs became a war aim on its own.
...The real decision was taken after the war: not to allow the 750 thousand Arab refugees to return to their homes.
The military censors did not allow me to dwell on the negative sides, so immediately after the war I wrote a second book called "The Other Side of the Coin", disguised as a literary work, so I did not have to submit it to censorship. There I reported, inter alia, that we had received orders to kill every Arab who tried to return home.
-
Complain about this comment
45. Ed Iglehart,
You have no point, though you seem to think your argument is somehow profoundly conclusive.
I've asked you before whether you think any of the surrounding states that were formed under British supervision of the Middle East are also illegitimate or whether your prejudice stops at the Jordan River. Iraq under Saddam and pre-Saddam regarded Kuwait as part of Iraq. Is this a valid position to take in your view and is Kuwait illegitimate?
As Ben Gurion said, Israel would have accepted a state the size of a postage stamp. You cannot hide from or escape the following facts, which make all talk of "jerrymandering" irrelevant:
*Britain was legally mandated by the League of Nations to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.
*Practically from the beginning of the Mandate, powerful elements within the British authorities worked against its successful conclusion, trying to sabotage it by such tactics as conspiring with and arming the Arabs and encouraging Arab immigration to Palestine while doing their best to limit Jewish immigration, even turning back those fleeing the Holocaust. The infamous White Paper of 1939 represented the culmination of these efforts.
*The British aside, the re-establishment of the Jewish state in the Land of Israel is a totally legitimate fact and is as legitimate as any other modern state recognised by the UN. It was immediately recognised by the Soviets and by America, the best efforts of the Arab-supporting State Department to thwart it fortunately being in vain. It was armed by Russia, via Czechoslovakia, and France in the 1948 War of Independence.
*Contrary to all propagandist attempts to twist the truth, the majority of Palestinians fled in 1948 at the insistence of their leaders so that the Arab armies could "drive the Jews into the sea" or fled of their own accord under the mistaken impression that the Jews would do to them what they would no doubt have done to the Jews under similar circumstances. This has been well-documented by reports at the time.
*The Jews had urged the Arabs to remain in their homes and villages.
*The Arabs who remained were, in fact, untouched by the victorious Jews. They and their descendants represent today's 1,3 million Israeli Arabs, living with total freedom of religion and human rights, with an Arab Cabinet Minister and Arab MPs - who, incidentally, feel free enough to continually berate the state in the Knesset and visit hostile nations like Syria.
*Defeated in battle after battle, in which they were always the aggressor, the Arabs never stopped trying to bring down the Jewish state by such means as economic boycotts, worldwide propaganda, UN General Assembly resolutions and using Palestinian "refugees" as a stick with which to beat Israel and of course conduct relentless terrorism against Israeli civilians.
So again, will Obama get tough with the Palestinians? Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
Ben-Gurion also said otherwise...and much more.1. Which other state was premised upon carving out a "partition" based upon an immigrant ethno-religious minorfity?
2. Do you actually consider it to have been a reasonable proposal from the viewpoint of the 45% non-Jewish minority of the proposed partition that they should become part of a "Jewish State"?
I await your answer.
Complain about this comment
Will Obama get tough with Israel?.
How about will Obama get tough with Hamas?.
Mr Lustig, your articles title is a disgrace, as for some of the comments posted on this thread, the people involved should be ashamed.
I thank god that this blog is unrepresentative of the majority view, mind you the BBC in general seems to be out of touch with the great British public, perhaps the BBC should attempt to recruit from outside the pages of the Guardian, and put an end to the idiotic 'common purpose' religion that seems to inhabit the BBC.
Complain about this comment
There is a word more common in Spanish than in English: "shameless".
That means the person feels no guilt about the tactics he employs. "Legalism" often exhibits this sort of behaviour.
Civilised folk on this thread use facts and logic.
The shameless seek to use ad hominemism, insult and intimidation to suppress facts and logic.
Note the letter from the editors of "The Other Israel" calling for the involvement of world public opinion.
May the BBC aid that and not succumb to intimidation!
Complain about this comment
I think that it will take more than one man to end the tit for tat violence that both sides are facing on a daily basis.
The blame for the violence cannot be put on the shoulders of one side, nor can anyone condone the actions of the extremists (from both sides).
Some posters on this thread seemed to have forgotten their manners, it is not a sign of intelligent debate to shout anti - Israeli/Palestinian slogans at each other.
Complain about this comment
TrueToo - Are you going to start saying that Gordon Brown is wrong or anti-semitic now as well ??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7783104.stm
Your criticism of non-Israelis would have a bit more credibility if you didn't ignore the areas where the Israelis fall short of their international treaty obligations.
Complain about this comment
Speaking retrospectively people seem to forget why Israel was carved out, the genocidal acts of Europe. In hindsight it would have been much easier to create a Jewish state in Europe (Germany) since the Arabs hand nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Anyway to be perfectly honest the world needs to adopt a 'lock them in a lift' approach, to cut of all funding and support, military or otherwise to BOTH parties and force the two parties to talk to each other by 'banging there heads together' to forge a solution.
So essentially Obama and the rest, need to be cruel to be kind to both sides to get this sorted already, but politicians being politicians means as usual nothing is going to actually change or get done.
you would think 60 odd years would be long enough for these 'intelligent beings' to solve these problems but alas it was easier to put people into space than force ourselves to find a solution collectively.
Complain about this comment
I've removed HTML , which was blocking the comment:
53. lordBeddGelert,
I'm not ignoring anything. I can't be expected to respond to every false accusation against Israel repeated by people who seem to have little else to do other than endlessly bash the country.
But you make a fair point about Gordon Brown. I believe he is actually a strong and genuine supporter of Israel so I find it disappointing that he seems to have uncritically accepted the idea that Israel simply has to hand over the settlements and all will be fine. In reality Israel is not obliged to hand over ALL the settlements under the oft-quoted UN Resolution 242 of 1967. Nowhere is this stated in 242. Israel is obliged to withdraw from TERRITORIES, not from THE territories. Now what of the obligations on the Arab side? I would have expected Gordon brown to at least have mentioned this rather than simply echoing the Palestinian demands on Israel. Anybody know what those obligations are?
Strangely enough, Israel immediately accepted 242 and offered to withdraw from all the territories it had captured in the war in exchange for peace. Egypt and Syria refused the offer (while Jordan eventually ceded its claim to the West bank in favour of the PLO.)
Then, in Khartoum, the Arab leaders issued their famous three 'nos' in response to the Israeli offer:
"No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
The Palestinians responded by pledging to "liberate" all of Palestine by means of "armed struggle" - i.e. terrorism.
Fast forward to Camp David and Taba where the Palestinians were offered nearly all of the territories in exchange for peace. They walked away from those offers. And fast forward to Gaza, where the Israeli disengagement was met with the immediate resumption of rocket fire on Israeli civilians.
But Israel is the intransigent one?
That many people are apparently unaware of these facts demonstrates the extraordinary effectiveness of relentless propaganda and distortion of facts from the pro-Arab side of the conflict.
Unfortunately the BBC is one of the prime channels for this propaganda. This is why it is unsurprising to see Robin Lustig speculating on whether Obama will "get tough on Israel," while cheerfully ignoring the obligations on the Arab side of the conflict.
54. harry27,
The notion that the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust is incorrect. For a start, have a look at Husseini, the Grand Mufti Of Jerusalem, who met Hitler and enthusiastically sought to replicate the "final solution" in Palestine.
49. Ed Iglehart,
As you might know, Ben Gurion has been extensively misquoted:
"* We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.
o Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh
o This was extensively quoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your 55%/45%. The Arabs rejected partition. i.e. there could have been a Palestinian state over 60 years ago. The Jews would certainly not have expelled the 45%, who would presumably have been free to move to the Arab areas. On the other hand we can be pretty sure about what would have happened to any Jews on the Arab side, judging by Arab history over the past 60 years and more.
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't you have rejected an offer of 45% of your homeland for 67% of its people (Including an isolated 'enclave' of Jaffa)? The partition resolution makes provision for "free movement", but only for Arabs to the Arab partition and Jews to the Jewish partition. Do you seriously not understand why the proposals were unacceptable to the Arab population?The Jews certainly did expel the Arab population, else how did they end up occupying 77% of Palestine with a Jewish majority? Answer: only by expelling the majority population and preventing its return.
A parable
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
To TrueToo #55:
"Unfortunately the BBC is one of the prime channels for this propaganda"
Are you the prime-channel for pro-Israeli propaganda?
In answer to:
Q: What are your criticisms of Israel throughout its long history?" You said:
A: "I have a few, but they are not related to the Israeli-Arab conflict and not relevant to this discussion. Do you have any criticism of the Palestinians?"
If you had actually answered this question then people could begin to understand your distinction between "anti-Israeli propaganda" and legitimate criticism. Portraying Israel as beyond criticism and attacking anyone who criticized or didn't show unconditional support does reduce the credibility of your arguments.
1) Why are you cheerfully ignoring the existence of any criticisms of Israel?
2) Why are your many criticisms of only Palestine relevant to this discussion/conflict?
3) Why do you think it is legitimate to associate the whole Palestinian people with the intentions of Palestinian extremists but not associate the whole Jewish people with Jewish extremists?
Perhaps in your spirit of non-engagement, you have some reasons but are unable to express them in a post.
Complain about this comment
This speaks exactly to Mr Lustig's topic:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1216/p09s01-coop.html
Complain about this comment
Removal of the settlements is the key to peace in Palestine. The European Union, and Britain, have a legal boycott on goods from Israeli factories in the Occupied Territories.
However, the manufacturers cheat Britain on this. The following page from Ha'retz has a lot of interesting information:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1047154.html
Complain about this comment
Palestine Remembered as featured on Al JazeeraThe truth, presented gently
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi
ed
Complain about this comment
56. wrote,
As you know, the Jews did not "expel" the Arabs. The majority chose to leave. But feel free to continually ignore this point along with the abundance of evidence that exists to back it for those who are prepared to look for it in the interests of genuine debate. But I guess you have to ignore it since it undermines your argument that Israel was a "mistake," and should never have been created.
And I note you have nothing to say about the misquoting of Ben Gurion.
57._marko wrote:
Why do you think it is legitimate to associate the whole Palestinian people with the intentions of Palestinian extremists but not associate the whole Jewish people with Jewish extremists?
I don't. A large majority of Palestinians associate themselves with the terrorists in their midst, i.e. they approve of suicide bombing of Israeli civilians. Poll after poll, conducted by the Palestinians themselves, proves this beyond doubt.
On the other hand, a very small minority indeed of Israelis associate themselves with the extremists in their midst.
Try to become familiar with the difference between a terrorist and an extremist. I know the BBC and others have obfuscated this issue for years, but there is no reason why people should blindly follow them into the fog.
You are the last one who should complain about others not answering questions. You could try instead to bring something to the debate.
Complain about this comment
LOL! and LOL! and LOL!I think in their position you would probably have "chosen" to leave...(in hope of return)Salaam, etc.
Complain about this comment
Ed Iglehart, interesting choice of evidence to use to back up your argumentation, TrueToo, also interesting choice of evidence to back up your arguments, on balance TrueToo seems to have the stronger argument, yet I am unconvinced that either side has "Proven" they are correct.
Tot straks.
Complain about this comment
Tot Straks,
Jewish and Palestinian sources, and the UN history?Plenty of evidence here and here...
.
And, then, there's Plan Dalet
Judge for yourself
Complain about this comment
63. A_View_From_France,
Here's the difference between myself and Ed Ingehart: He is trying to build a case that Israel is illegitimate and the country should never have been established, and is doing so by means of distortion, exaggeration and propaganda. I am trying to highlight the tactics employed by Ed Ingehart and his fellow-travellers for what they are by presenting the unembellished facts of the conflict - as far as these can be grasped through the fog of historical revisionism shrouding the conflict.
Ed Ingehart,
Would be good if you could drop the HTML. I know it's a satisfying little flourish to wrap the HTML in text like 'LOL' but as I've said before I like to know where I'm going before I check an article.
Benny Morris dispels the expulsion myth here:
http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2008/02/benny-morris-on-fact-fiction-propaganda.html
Most [my emphasis] of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.
He also dispels myths concerning Plan Dalet.
Since Morris has done plenty Israel-bashing in his time, no doubt you'll take what he says seriously.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To TrueToo #61 (or anyone!)
Apart from irrational or anti-ethnic hatred what do you see as the main reasons:
1) Israelis hate Palestinians
2) Palestinians hate Israelis
(perhaps simplistically a paragraph on each so that people can understand the situation better)
Thanks for answering one question posed in post #57. Please try the other four when you have time in the interests of genuine debate. I brought some questions to the debate and some answers may have cleared the "fog".
To A_View_From_France #63
What convinces you that Ed Iglehart has the weaker argument?
Complain about this comment
Regarding comment No. 66, it was probably 'referred' because of an extended quotation from the description of the Palestinian refugees Here at Mideastweb, to which I refer any truly interested parties (there are also links to a number of other "takes" on the situation at the bottom of the linked article, and I also commend the Mideastweb site in toto.
Salaaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
68. Ed Ingehart,
Just to clear up any potential misconceptions here, I am against the tactic of complaining about comments, and having not seen your comment at no. 66 I have no idea why it was referred. Since the moderators of these BBC blogs are generally quite tolerant as to what they will allow through, anyone who strongly objects to a comment can express that objection and be fairly certain that it will be posted.
You might consider limiting the continual links and quotes. I don't see much point in playing a game of table tennis in which the research and opinions of others are endlessly batted back and forth.
Hand in hand with their attempts to destroy Israel through successive unprovoked attacks and continual terrorist atrocities, the Arabs employed economic boycotts and an energetic barrage of propaganda. This last is reminiscent of the Middle Eastern market place; the seller offers his item at a price perhaps 20 times more than he is in fact willing to accept and expresses great regret when he eventually parts with it at ten times the price.
Likewise, the Arabs and their friends on the left make a tremendous amount of propagandist noise about the Israeli-Arab conflict, much of it verging on fantasy, in the hope that at least some of it will be accepted as the unvarnished truth. Many people buy into the anti-Israel version of events simply on the premise that all that noise must stem from a justified cause.
And the left wing media, including the BBC, has wholeheartedly accepted that version of events. Hence we have Robin Lustig asking whether Obama will get tough with Israel; but you will seldom find a BBC journalist regarding the Palestinians as the intransigent ones no matter how many times they turn away from peace.
67. _marko,
Sitting on a lofty perch and demanding that people answer your questions does not constitute a debate. Again, I'm wondering if you can actually bring anything to the table here.
Complain about this comment
It's plain that you would prefer to bat un-referenced and generalised assertions back and forth.The facts are plain:
1. Jews comprised 33% of Palestine's people in 1946, and were largely an immigrant population.
2. The UN proposed allocating 55% of Palestine to a "Jewish State". (the nth in a series of failed proposals)
3. The 66% Majority of Palestinians found this unacceptable.
4. Despite (3.), the "solution" was imposed. (by the will of the "international community")
5. War followed, and the 33% minority found itself in possession of 77% of Palestine (and, as if by magic, in a majority).
6. The will of the international community (UN res 194) was disregarded, and those who had fled the fighting were dispossessed, maintaining the Jewish majority and making room for ethno-religiously selective immigration...
And, so it did happen, like it coulda' been forseen..., The timeless explosion of fantasy's dream/At the peak of the night, the king and the queen/Tumbled all down into pieces...Q.E.D.
Complain about this comment
[Post 66, summarised with quotations truncated to appease moderators' concerns about copyright]
I do, and I read what he actually says.So they [mostly] fled under the flail of war, expecting to return and they were promised that they could return by some Israelis who 'encouraged' their evacuation.
Fact: Their return was denied and their homes and villages destroyed.AAAnd a further extract fro Ami Isseroff's piece at Mideastweb (he is a peaceful Zionist)To me, it seems to be stretching the truth to say that most "decided to leave", as though it wasn't a decision informed by fear and a degree of compulsion.
But you believe what you want to. I chase the historical record (and observe current Israeli behaviour)
Complain about this comment
TrueToo
When are you going to apologise to LesMajestey for calling him/her an anti-Semite and to others who you disagree with.
Complain about this comment
#57
_marko,
Since you seem to love questions, may I ask you why is that you only ask TrueToo to explain the background to his opinion? I quote:
'1)Why are you cheerfully ignoring the existence of any criticisms of Israel?
2) Why are your many criticisms of only Palestine relevant to this discussion/conflict?
3) Why do you think it is legitimate to associate the whole Palestinian people with the intentions of Palestinian extremists but not associate the whole Jewish people with Jewish extremists?'
May I suggest you substitute 'Israel' for 'Palestine' and 'Palestine' for 'Israel' in you questions and ask Ed Iglehart to answer them? Only then you will be able to claim a non-biased discussion, as at the moment yours is anyting but non-biased.
Complain about this comment
But you believe what you want to. I chase the historical record (and observe current Israeli behaviour)
As someone who chases the historical record I expect you will find this and this of interest.
There were massacres on both sides in this conflict a historian doesn't pick and choose.
1. Jews comprised 33% of Palestine's people in 1946, and were largely an immigrant population.
These were hardly colonialists they were fleeing persecution for example the exodus ship. Not just from Europe though. My family originates from here until this happened. By the way i could do a really good "Arab leaders in their own words" slideshow from just that article.
Complain about this comment
To Isenhorn #73
"Since you seem to love questions, may I ask you why is that you only ask TrueToo to explain the background to his opinion?"
Yes I love em! It's a way of finding out more information and clarifying opinion. I also ask other posters questions.
Maybe coming from a lofty perch is a good reason not to answer them. Please use the questions as a template and ask Ed Iglehart if you feel he is displaying these qualities.
I thought the question posed in #67 was a good unbiased one and was surprised that TrueToo didn't engage with it. The answer may have "brought something to the table".
Although quite a high-tension and not a particularly inviting thread, it would be useful if anyone could reply.
(but obviously there's no compulsion to respond)
Complain about this comment
73. Isenhorn,
Good point. _marko is being deliberately provocative and in a one-sided fashion. I see no opening for debate there.
74. luacene,
Ed Ingehart will glide past that. He is only interested in bashing Israel, not the Arab countries for decimating their Jewish populations, which have fallen to about one percent of their number before 1948, while about twenty percent of Israelis are Arabs.
Ed Ingehart,
You can't know much about Israel if you imagine that your quote at comment 70 makes any sense. Yes, Israel is predominantly a Jewish state but there is complete freedom of religion for followers of any faith, whether it be Islam, Christianity, Buddhism or whatever. Contrast that with the blind intolerance, especially towards Christianity, throughout the Muslim world.
The Jews did not rape any Arab women at Deir Yassin. Please try to distinguish propaganda from fact. "Truncated to appease the moderators?" More like truncated to suit your own prejudices.
72. dceilar,
I assume you are referring to my comment no. 17. You shouldn't be accusing me of making false accusations without knowing anything about LesMajestey. He commented as Xie_Ming before he was banned and has now bounced back with a new pseudonym.
Xie_Ming denied the Holocaust on another BBC blog in a comment that was a prime example of antisemitism, and was of such a foul nature that I was tempted to break my rule and complain about it. I didn't, preferring to let the comment stand and so let him reveal his true colours in his own words.
After that comment, Xie_Ming/LesMajestey can no longer use the cover of simply being anti-Israel to hide his antisemitism. I'm sure I don't need to point out that the Holocaust happened before the creation of Israel.
I haven't accused anyone else of antisemitism so I don't know who else you imagine warrants an apology from me.
Now I expect you aplologise for unjustly accusing me of wrongly accusing Xie_Ming of antisemitism and demanding that I apologise to him.
Complain about this comment
Luacene,
Indeed they were fleeing persecution, but not a persecution with which the native Palestinians had much to do, nor does being a refugee justify the forcible dispossession of anyone else.I read Exodus long, long ago and was for many years a somewhat uncritical Zionist, but Israeli behaviour has turned me 180 degrees. Having lived many years in New York City, I remain a great admirer of many Jews and of Jewish culture and tradition.
The historical incident (from Ami Isseroff, for whom I have great respect) is fortunately a somewhat isolated event, but there is little doubt that history is far from clean of violence from many perpetrators...There is also little doubt that both sides engaged in warlike acts between the passing of res 181 and Israeli UDI.
I'm inclined to take the Arab leaders' words you point to in the spirit of relatively prescient statements of the obvious. It is certain that to impose partition against the will of two thirds of the population of any place (and the entire surrounding "neighbourhood") will generate disorder, not excluding among those who feel common cause.
Their simple warnings actually echo those of the Prominent American Jews in 1919...I'm very much inclined to be in complete agreement with the sentiments they express. Pity their words (and those of the Arab leaders) weren't heeded.
Thanks for the links.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Partition was never a good idea. It led to far more bloodshed and disorder in Indo/Pakistan, and has never worked anywhere I'm aware of. Far better if the Western European nations (including USA, UK, Aus, NZ,, etc.) had opened their doors.
Complain about this comment
To TrueToo #76
"Good point. _marko is being deliberately provocative and in a one-sided fashion. I see no opening for debate there."
I guess it is provocative to acknowledge both positive and negative sides of Israel's history.
Complain about this comment
TT,
So there is automatic Israeli citizenship for any Jew from anywhere, but not for a Palestinian who was born in the present Israel (or probably not for any member of another faith...I also give little credence to your calumny about Muslim "blind intolerance"...many Christians and some Jews I know report the exact opposite. And what exactly is the "constitution" of Israel? Is what passes for a constitution not based upon Jewish Law? I assure you the full context was included in the original post. That's why it was too long for the moderators.Salaam, etc.
ed
Complain about this comment
#75
-marko,
Even though I have got nothing to do with Israel and Palestine I can assume where people's opinions come from.
If I was an Israeli and had to live in country attacked numerous times in the last 60 years by all of its neighbours, hell-bent on destroying me then you bet that I would be more than a little critical of their attitude.
On the other hand if a some sort of political arrangement was created that forced me to live in a country I did not want to live in, I would also try to remedy that. Hence the Palestinian fight at the moment.
So I see little need to trying to explain each other's motives as they are quite obvious. This thread started as a discussion of how the situation can be changed and now it has deteriorated in the same old blame-game. I agree that both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others and a the sooner everybody realizes that, the better.
My personal opinion is (and I do not ask anybody to subscribe to it) that the Palestinians and their allies the Arab states chose the worst possibe option to sort out the problem (vis. war) and after being beaten several times have started playing the 'we are the victims' card. I rather think that we would not be in this pitiful state of affairs had it not been for those wars.
And a final question- do you think that there would have been any talk at all today of a two state solution (for Isarelis and Palestinians), if the Arab states had succeeded in winning even a single war against Israel?
Complain about this comment
Ed Ingehart,
From your own ?mideastweb? link at comment 71:
Whatever happened at Deir Yassin, the news or rumor greatly magnified it. The Irgun announced that 254 persons had been killed. This inflated figure has been perpetuated, and some sources even claim that the entire village was wiped out, which is certainly untrue. Arab sources put the numbers at over three hundred and added graphic descriptions of rape and torture of various kinds. Hazem Nusseibeh, who worked for the Palestine Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." In a BBC documentary marking 50 years of the conflict, Nusseibeh admitted, "This was our biggest mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror."
You chose to lift only that last sentence out of that account and post it out of context so that people here would believe that the Jews had raped Arab women at Deir Yassin. That?s how the propagandist acts ? without concern for truth or conscience about defaming others, in your case the Haganah.
I gave you the opportunity to respond to my comment at no. 76 and acknowledge that the Jews had not raped any Arab women. Since you failed to do so, you have lost what little credibility you had in my eyes. It is apparent now that you will stoop to any level to demonise Israel.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
TT,
1. Deir Yassin wasn't a Haganah 'operation'. It was IRGUN. 2. The point of the series of quotations was that the Palestinians fled in fear engendered by rumours (whether or not true), and that (in some cases) such rumours were intentionally spread.Who spread the rumour?Your rules, your opinion. Israel is demonstrably capable of demonising itself without my help.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Re: #82 being referred to the moderators
I hope I get an explanation as to why my post referred to the moderators! Here it is again worded differently:
#76 TT Can provide evidence of this statement? Such statements are illegal in the UK. If true, the BBC should be in trouble for publishing it.
#81 TT After they fled, were the Palestinians allowed to return to their homes? If not, why not?
Complain about this comment
83. Ed Iglehart,
Yes, I grasped the point you were trying to make with your quotations. But I see you are going to continue to duck mine.
Whether they were Haganah or Irgun or both is immaterial. They did not rape anyone, as your copy and paste artistry would have people believe. The fact that you will neither acknowledge this, nor the fact that the rumours of rape were spread by the Arabs, speaks volumes about your style of debate here.
Complain about this comment
84. dceilar,
You seem to think you are on some sort of good wicket here. If you really want to know about the anti-Semitism of Xie_Ming/LesMajestey, go to Justin Webb's American Exceptionalism post on Nov 13th. Xie Ming's original Holocaust denial, now removed, was at no. 334 at midday on Nov 16th and was on the site at least until my response the next morning at no. 425.
Nick-Gotts (who is no friend of Israel and regards Zionists with "contempt") said it best at no. 335:
Xie_Ming,
Your attempt to minimise the Nazi holocaust is loathsome rubbish. I now know not to take anything you say seriously.
If you really need more evidence, look at nos. 369, 471, 472, 476 and 482:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/11/american_exceptionalism.html?page=2#comments
Now about that apology of yours, before I deal with your second point...
Complain about this comment
To Isenhorn #80:
Thanks for your thoughts.
"do you think that there would have been any talk at all today of a two state solution (for Israelis and Palestinians), if the Arab states had succeeded in winning even a single war against Israel?"
Probably not (based on my prejudice and lack of any real analysis). The speculation is only significant if the talk eventually turns into a solution.
"I agree that both sides are right in some respects and wrong in others and a the sooner everybody realizes that, the better. "
This platform attracts enough people (experts that know a lot about the Middle East, TrueToo, Ed Iglehart etc.) so that it's a good a place as any to discuss the situation and be explicit about opinions and motives (presumably an equivalent Arabic version exists).
Complain about this comment
One can see in this thread an exposition of facts that do respond to the sponsor's question and that are also leading to a possible solution as desired in post # 87.
The editors of The Other Israel (Post # 44) mention peace groups in Israel, but pointedly exclude "right-wing Zionists". It is known that the policy of right-wing Zionists is not at all peaceful.
The Israeli/American treatment of the Palestinians is of critical importance to any Middle Eastern efforts of the USA and is of great significance in the recruitment of jihadists. But, from the standpoint of internal politics, can Obama get tough with Israel as the sponsor asks?
The most violent immigrants to Israel (e.g. Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein, many Gush-Emunim) have come from New York. Recent immigration to the USA is principally right-wing Orthodox. Although many Jewish peace groups exist in the USA, it is AIPAC and its allies who have the money and who influence the Congress(see the Mearsheimer and Walt report). Thus, internal politics might impede Obama from acting justly.
Documenting the genocide/ethnic cleansing of 1948/1949, the continuing genocidal acts against the Palestinians (Post # 36), the violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Post # 9) and the Right to Protect (Post # 39) will provide a legal and humanitarian impulse for just action on the part of Obama.
Complain about this comment
Here's some results from a March 2008 poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR):
Finally, findings show a significant increase in the level of support for armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel with 67% supportive and 31% opposed. Average support for such attacks on Israeli civilians stood at 40% in 2005 and 55% in 2006. Findings also show wide-spread support for the suicide attack that took place in the Israeli town Dimona and led to the death of one Israeli woman, with support standing at 77% and opposition at 19%. The armed attack on a religious school in West Jerusalem which led to the death of eight Israeli students is supported by 84% and opposed by 13%. Support for similar suicide attacks inside Israel dropped significantly during 2005 with only 29% supporting a suicide attack that took place in Tel Aviv and 37% supporting another one in Beersheba. But support for such attacks increased in mid 2006 as a suicide attack in Tel Aviv at that time received the support of 69% and the opposition of 27%.
And Robin Lustig speculates on whether Obama will get tough with Israel:
No getting tough with the Palestinians then, I imagine, as destructive as it is to encourage them to carry on as usual.
Complain about this comment
I see the banned Xie_Ming, who came back as LesMajestey and was probably banned again since there were no comments from him for a while, has now returned as Ganz_Anders at no. 88 and has the unmitigated gall to refer back to one of his own comments at no 44.
He doesn't realise how transparent he is - same old Israel-bashing, same old absurd attempts to link Israel to "genocide," same old peculiar, robotic style of prose.
Complain about this comment
The existence or non-existence of intent to commit genocide has not been clearly established in the foregoing postings by either side. This needs to be done.
"genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..
The specific acts were specified in Post # 36.
Article III provides that the following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Postings by both sides have adequately addressed the acts involved as specified by Article II of the Genocide Convention (Post # 36). What is now needed is to establish or to refute the intent of the Israelis with regard to the Palestinians in the matter of intent and within the categories of Article III.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, that as far as I'm concerned, there was never genocide (intentional or not) on the part of the Israelis towards the Palestinians. I do not think it is a useful term for the discussion.
It is clear to me that many of the Israelis, possibly from the beginning of the Mandate, or the development of Revisionist Zionism, but certainly from the end of WWII, wished to ensure a majority Jewish population in any new state, and were thus determined to drive out as many of the native Palestinians as possible and to prevent their return or any other "immigration" of non-Jews which might dilute the Jewish character of the state.
This wasn't genocide, but it was certainly "ethnic cleansing", and a great injustice. And it was and is totally anachronistic in a "Post Colonial" age.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace and Justice
ed
Complain about this comment
It is asserted in Post # 92 that the Israeli actions in 1948/49 were not genocide, but were ethnic cleansing.
Since ethnic cleansing is so far undefined, one must examine the intent and the actions, particularly with regard to Article II of the Convention on Genocide.
If the intent and any of the criteria of genocidal action are met, then the action constituted genocide and a definition of ethnic cleansing becomes unnecessary.
Now, was the intent in driving out the Palestinians committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?
It seems clear that the intent was to destroy the Palestinians within the territory that Israel sought to occupy.
The specific acts of genocide are specified in Article II:
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 transferring children of the group to another group.
One must then ask whether members of the group were killed; whether serious mental harm was inflicted; whether conditions of life were or are being inflicted to bring about the destruction in whole or in part of the group.
The criterion of forcible transfer of children to another group seems to reflect questionable drafting. To forcibly transfer a family implies the transfer of children. The additional phrase "to anther group", seems misleading. In the context of the statute, this may be interpreted as to another national group, e.g., Jordan.
An early posting mentioned the "exclusion of certain other villages", i.e. those where the inhabitants were massacred.
It should be evident that these criteria must be established or refuted before one can validly assert that genocide did or did not occur.
Complain about this comment
92. Ed Iglehart,
It's the old tactic of trying to muddy the waters by ascribing to the Jews tactics that are actually employed by the Arabs. Neither genocide nor ethnic cleansing were ever considered or employed by the Jews of Palestine. On the other hand, turn the spotlight on the Arabs and you will find a vast field for research and debate - from the pre-1948 and post-1948 pogroms and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries (to the extent that there are only approximately one percent of the 1948 population of Jews currently remaining in those countries) to the calculated mass murder of Darfur's African Muslims by the Arab Muslims in Khartoum to Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds to Syria's Hama massacre. That'll do for a start.
It's obviously very difficult to determine now exactly to what extent the Palestinians were driven out by the Jews, fled in fear because they thought the Jews would do to them what they would have done to the Jews had the situation been reversed, or left of their own accord at the urging of their leaders, who claimed they would be able to return "once the Jews had been driven into the sea." Funny, we never hear about those last two groups from the Israel-bashers. And we never hear an acknowledgement from the latter that there was a war on, that some Palestinians actually fought on the side of the invading Arab armies and that the Jews were fighting for their very survival.
Whatever the case, the Palestinians who fled around 1948 made the wrong choice. The ones who remained, along with their descendants, now represent Israel's Arab community of over a million people, with freedoms and rights that many of their brethren in Arab countries can only dream of.
Try to stop the historical revisionism.
Complain about this comment
#86 TrueToo
From what I've seen from other posts on the blog you mentioned I'm lead to believe that Xie_ming was quoting Hannah Arendt's figure of three and a half million Jews being murdered in the Holocaust. I've yet to see any evidence of Holocaust Denial. In my opinion it doesn't matter whose figure is right - it's still a Holocaust.
You seem to think you are on some sort of good wicket here.
Eh? You think this is a game of point scoring over the other like Sophistry? Seeking Truth isn't a game. I wonder if you know what Truth is. As you see this as a game of point scoring, are you going to accuse Hannah Arendt of antisemitism now?
Complain about this comment
I can't reproduce Ming's comment here since it was banned. But since you have great difficulty in believing what I said about it, why not accept what Nick-Gotts said about it? As I pointed out in comment 86, he is not exactly a supporter of Israel.
And why do you imagine the comment was removed by the moderators if it was as innocent as you suggest?
I expect you to be at least fair-minded enough to acknowledge that you rushed to judgement against me here.
Complain about this comment
#96 TT
It's just that if there was an Holocaust Denial comment I'd expect more comments criticising the poster. Nick Gotts comment you quoted does not infer the Xie_Ming's comment was Holocaust Denial. It suggests to me that he was criticising Ming's quoted figures from Hannah Arendt.
And why do you imagine the comment was removed by the moderators if it was as innocent as you suggest?
We all have had comments removed by the moderators for reasons only the moderators know.
I expect you to be at least fair-minded enough to acknowledge that you rushed to judgement against me here.
All I asked for is evidence. Published Holocaust Denial comments are very rare - I've, as yet, never seen one on the BBC. I would expect more of a backlash if there was one.
It seems that we'll never agree on the same thing. It's our Right, and I'm sure it's a Right that both of us will defend.
Complain about this comment
There is some question, as indicated by posts #92 and # 93, as to whether the actions of the Israelis against the Palestinians (initially, in 1948) constitute "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide".
It seems that both are considered war crimes.
From the 2005 Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The establishment of the ICC reinforced the links between ethnic cleansing and other offenses such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In its finalized text on the elements of the crimes in the court's jurisdiction, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court made clear that ethnic cleansing could constitute all three offenses within the ICC's jurisdiction.
Genocide, for example, was defined as an act that may include the systematic expulsion of individuals from their homes; the threat of force or coercion to effect the transfer of a targeted group of persons was recognized as an element of crimes against humanity; and the ?unlawful deportation and transfer,? as well as the displacement, of civilians were recognized as elements of war crimes."
In addition various villages were said to have had most of their residents willfully killed.
Since intent is the key to a definition of genocide, the evidence concerning intent is crucial in this matter.
Complain about this comment
TT,
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us..."Complain about this comment
97. dceilar,
You are certainly trying hard to build a house of cards to convince yourself that Xie_Ming's post was not Holocaust denial, bringing in all sorts of fanciful ideas to justify your stance. The fact that many people did not take issue with the comment is no argument.
You should try at least to aim for consistency in your argument. Originally you insisted that the moderators would never publish a comment denying the Holocaust and that therefore that particular comment could not have been Holocaust denial. Now when you learn that the comment was banned, you cast about for other reasons for it being banned.
You can't seriously expect me to believe that you believe what you say about Nick-Gotts' comment. The disgust he expressed was obviously not because Xie_Ming was just fiddling with figures.
You ask for evidence and then you reject the evidence. Well, perhaps at least you have learned not to rush to judgement as you did when accusing me of unjustly accusing Xie_Ming of antisemitism.
Since you apparently have quite a keen interest in the matter you could always research it by clicking on his name and having a look at his excessive and obsessive anti-Israel rants, many of them quite antisemitic.
99. Ed Iglehart,
There was nothing in our comment that made me want to click on the link. As I've mentioned before, I like to at least have a hint of where I'm going before I go there.
Complain about this comment
As I've mentioned before, if you float your mouse pointer over the link, your browser should give you the link's URL somewhere on your screen. Mine does it along the bottom.Complain about this comment
#100
Further evidence of this can be found at #439 in "confirming our prejudices."
# 437
reintroduces the subect of the Jews and of Israel.
Would it not be better to talk of decent people and important topics?
While im not entirely sure that lesmajesty is xie ming it is clear that xie ming is an anti-semite. He also suggested that only 350,000 had been killed and that Jews had inflated the figure im not certain as to whether this is holocaust denial it is certainly anti-semitic.
#98
Since intent is the key to a definition of genocide, the evidence concerning intent is crucial in this matter.
Although i suspect that you may have already made up your mind on this issue the main evidence cited for intent is a dubious interpretation of plan dalet which is discussed
here .
If you think that the Israelis actions against the Palestinians were genocide what's different between these and the many massacres of Israelis by Palestinians? Did they both commit genocide against each other? I don't imagine that it will be difficult to find evidence for intent of arab leaders trying to "ethnically cleanse" Jews from Palestine. (because they did not believe that they were there legitimately in the first place) Is it only ethnic cleansing when it's sucessful?
Complain about this comment
#100
Further evidence of this can be found at #439 in "confirming our prejudices."
# 437
reintroduces the subect of the Jews and of Israel.
Would it not be better to talk of decent people and important topics?
While im not entirely sure that lesmajesty is xie ming it is clear that xie ming is an anti-semite. He also suggested that only 350,000 had been killed and that Jews had inflated the figure im not certain as to whether this is holocaust denial it is certainly antisemitic.
#98
Since intent is the key to a definition of genocide, the evidence concerning intent is crucial in this matter.
Although i suspect that you may have already made up your mind on this issue the main evidence cited for intent is a dubious interpretation of plan dalet which is discussed
here
If you think that the Israelis actions against the Palestinians were genocide what's different between these and the many massacres of Israelis by Palestinians? Did they both commit genocide against each other? I don't imagine that it will be difficult to find evidence for intent of arab leaders trying to "ethnically cleanse" Jews from Palestine. (because they did not believe that they were there legitimately in the first place) Is it only ethnic cleansing when it's sucessful?
Complain about this comment
The last item in Post #103 speaks of Palestinians committing "many massacres" against Israelis and asks whether this be not genocide, and further asks if "ethnic cleansing is only ethnic cleansing when it is successful?"
Post # 91 defines genocide and 3(d) specifies that the attempt to commit genocide coupled with the intent to destroy a people and one of the acts specified in Article II constitutes genocide.
Thus, the answer to your question would appear to be "No, it need not be successful if the criteria of Article II are met".
As to "ethnic cleansing", Post # 98 indicates that it may or may not also be genocide. In any event, both are war crimes.
The suggestion that the Palestiians (non-state actors) may also be guilty of genocide or ethnic cleansing is an interesting one, but, does it speak to the guilt or innocence of the Israeli government with respect to genocide or ethnic cleansing?
It is the latter point which bears on the question of "should Obama get tough with Israel?".
Complain about this comment
RE: intent
Perhaps a lawyer can help us out here:
I would suspect that "intent" requires a reasonable possibility of carrying out the intended act.
For example, an individual suicide bomber might want to "kill as many as possible", but would have no chance of destroying an ethnic group.
Complain about this comment
#100 TrueToo
You should try at least to aim for consistency in your argument. Originally you insisted that the moderators would never publish a comment denying the Holocaust and that therefore that particular comment could not have been Holocaust denial. Now when you learn that the comment was banned, you cast about for other reasons for it being banned.
Again, Sophistry from you. An Holocaust Denial comment would not have made it past the moderators in the first place. You have posted on other BBC blogs, you should know what pre-moderated means. Xie_Ming's comment was removed because someone asked the moderators to remove it hours after it was published. An Holocaust Denial post would not have been published because it's illegal in the UK.
You ask for evidence and then you reject the evidence. Well, perhaps at least you have learned not to rush to judgement as you did when accusing me of unjustly accusing Xie_Ming of antisemitism.
You have given me no evidence, indeed, the 'evidence' you showed implied that Ming was quoting Hannah Arendt's figures of the number murdered in the Holocaust. I have learnt not to trust your word. You are a Sophist who sees truth as winning the argument at all costs regardless if you are right or wrong!
you could always research it by clicking on his name and having a look at his excessive and obsessive anti-Israel rants, many of them quite antisemitic.
I have and I saw no antisemitism. I saw no Holocaust Denial either (which is your original charge against him being antisemitic). Indeed, many of his references are from peaceful Jewish groups based in Israel. As you like point scoring: Are Israeli peaceniks antisemites now?
#102 luacene
Your reference to that post infers no such thing and is also taken out of context. I believe he is referring to the person who posted at #437 in that blog.
Complain about this comment
Its not taken out of context at all. He clearly implies that Jews and Zionists aren't decent people. It says "would it not be better to talk of decent people and important topics." You think he means talk of True too? Im not sure what we gain from arguing this however.
Complain about this comment
103. luacene,
Yes, there is no doubt at all about Xie_Ming's antisemitism. And yes, he is LesMajestey and almost certainly Ganz_Anders above, unless the latter is simply copying and pasting from the former two. Not much use telling dceilar about it though. His mind is made up despite the evidence.
I have been observing Xie_Ming's comments for about six months now, but no longer debate him since you get more feedback and communication from a robot.
101. Ed Iglehart,
Oops, you are right. Apologies.
106. dceilar wrote,
An Holocaust Denial comment would not have made it past the moderators in the first place.
You can repeat that statement as often as you like but it wont make it true. You also need to understand that nobody commenting here has the power to remove a comment. People can refer a comment to the moderators by complaining about it but only the moderators can remove it. Evidently they haven't made a decision yet about my comment at no. 90 since it is still in referred mode.
I see you have fallen for Xie_Ming's tactic of using "peaceful Jewish groups" to "prove" his point. Ed Ingehart does the same thing. And they both selectively quote and misrepresent these groups many of which are far from "peaceful." However, I have not accused Ed Ingehart of being an antisemite since I have no evidence to suggest that he is and it's not an accusation I make lightly.
Your stand here is transparent. You can shut your eyes and close your ears and insist that I am wrong about Xie_Ming when what you really should be doing is apologising to me for accusing me of unjustly labelling Xie_Ming as antisemitic.
A while back I wrongly accused a blogger, with whom I'd been having many heated arguments, of hypocrisy based on a misreading of his comment. I aplogised unreservedly to him once I realised my mistake. I guess you are not big enough to do the same thing.
Complain about this comment
Concerning proof of Israeli intent to commit genocide, Luacene, in the last item of Post # 103, links to Plan Dalet (Daleth).
Plan D essentially required the military occupation and administration of Arab villages. It also specifies "in the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state".
As the Plan was put into action, a famous Israeli journalist was there, fighting in the front line. His report is linked in Post # 47.
"..in the course of the fighting, an Arab village came under heavy fire. Its inhabitants - men, women and children - fled, of course, to the next village.
Then we fired on the next village, and they fled to the next one, and so forth, until the armistice came into force and suddenly there was a border (the Green Line) between them and their homes.
The Deir Yassin massacre gave another powerful push to the flight.
When was the start of the "ethnic cleansing" you spoke about?
In the second half of the war, after the advance of the Arab armies was halted, a deliberate policy of expelling the Arabs became a war aim on its own.
...The real decision was taken after the war: not to allow the 750 thousand Arab refugees to return to their homes".
Avnery also adds that the soldiers had received orders to kill any who sought to return to their homes..
These two items would suggest that that the intent deepened after the intitial drafting of Plan Dalet.
Has anyone read the book by Ilan Pappe, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" ? That might give us some more facts.
Complain about this comment
The ISBN of the Pappe book is 9781851684670.
He is a senior lecturer in Political Science at Haifa University. I look forward to reading the book.
Here is part of a review:
"Pappe demonstrates how ethnic cleansing was not a circumstance of war, but rather a deliberate goal of combat for early Israeli military units led by David Ben-Gurion, whom Pappe labels the "architect of ethnic cleansing."
The forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians between 1948-49, Pappe argues, was part of a long-standing Zionist plan to manufacture an ethnically pure Jewish state.
Framing his argument with accepted international and UN definitions of ethnic cleansing, Pappe follows with an excruciatingly detailed account of Israeli military involvement in the demolition and depopulation of hundreds of villages, and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arab inhabitants.
.. Pappe argues that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine continues today..."
Has anyone read it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Alsearcher,
No, but it's now on my Christmas list ;-)Peace and thanks
ed
Complain about this comment
So, live long and prosper!
----------------------------------------
In visiting a nearby public library, I find that the Pappe book has mysteriously disappeared- thus, it will be a few days before I get a chance to read it.
(I wonder if the book is suffering a similar fate elsewhere?)
Complain about this comment
Well, lets just say that Ilan Pappe is wrong and there is extensive evidence available on the Internet pointing to that fact. (Unfortunately the moderators wont let me present it here.)
So Xie_Ming, LesMajestey, Ganz_Anders, U13752295 and AlSearcher (who are obviously all the same individual) and Ed Ingehart can read Pappe endlessly but it will do nothing to change that fact, only reinforce their prejudices.
Meanwhile nobody has adequately answered the question posed by Robin Lustig. I think the answer is that Obama wont get tough with Israel, or at least he will get equally tough with the Palestinians.
That'll be refreshing to see.
Complain about this comment
Here's what Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said on the subject in our special programme on Obama's foreign policy broadcast from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
"If (Obama) reaches the conclusion that this is an essentially intractable problem that can only be addressed step by step, then we?ll have a lot of the past being replayed in the present and the future. If he, however, reaches the conclusion that this is a problem that is susceptible to solution, provided a constructively minded outside party becomes actively engaged, namely the United States, then he can push the process forward by helping the Israeli and the Palestinians reach an agreement from today regarding, at least, the fundamental parameters of what is bound to be a very complex and difficult settlement."
And here's what Carnegie analyst George Perkovich said: "If you do the analysis and
you have doubts about the success then you wouldn?t start and spend your political capital on something that?s doubtful, number one. Number two: There are elections in Israel in February, so we don?t even know who the interlocutor is in Israel and what they want ? whether they even want to participate in, with good brokerage, a process. Secondly, as was alluded to, there?s the question of the capabilities. You have to assess, could an Israeli leadership deliver? Okay, probably, but could a
Palestinian leadership deliver? I do think there is an element of hope in this interview that Prime Minister Olmert gave in
November, which was very interesting, where he said, acknowledging that it?s easy for outgoing Prime Minister to say it, but nonetheless, very heartfelt. You know, that Israelis have to understand that they?re going to have to give up settlements and they?re going to have to give up all of that
territory, whether or not in the settlements or an equivalent parcel. That was very strong. And the other thing, you know, impressively, he talked about Jerusalem and told his people that, yes, we?re going to have to accept a Palestinian presence, in a significant way, in Jerusalem."
Full transcript available at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1230
Complain about this comment
Obama has the problem of accomodating US public opinion.
Posting # 116 speaks to realpolitik , and Olmert's Yom Kippur interview in Ha'aretz ("Things that must be said") was revelatory.
Would demonstration of Israeli ethnic cleansing or genocide, followed by official moves to prosecute those responsible, make possible more effective action by the President of the United States?
Complain about this comment
Postings at #109 and # 110 show some of the the implementation of the ethnic cleasing/genocide in 1948.
There has been a long-standing intent, established at the highest levels of the Zionist enterprise and of the Israeli government. This also needs to be established. One item in that proof:
"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said
?Drive them out??
Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version
of Rabin memoirs, published in the New
York Times, 23 October 1979.
Complain about this comment
One can use the internet to find the full history of this memorandum, it bears on the question of intent, but one would need proof of implementation:
"We must use terror, assassination,
intimidation, land confiscation, and the
cutting of all social services to rid the
Galilee of its Arab population."
Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"
Complain about this comment
As to the intent of the probable Israeli Prime Minister in February, 2009:
"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories."
Benyamin Netanyahu, then Israeli Deputy
Foreign Minister, former Prime Minister of
Israel, tells students at Bar Ilan University,
From the Israeli journal Hotam, November
24, 1989.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Lustig, from the Carnegie transcript:
Brzezinski: What made it possible at the time was, first of all, Sadat's willingness to break the logjam, the Israelis' initial responsiveness, but then rigidity. Then a stalemate developed and it was broken entirely thanks to the president of the United States, Carter. If he hadn't taken the steps that he did, if he hadn't engaged himself personally, the thing would never have been a success.
This is a good example of the perception among politicians of the left that Israel is the guilty party. Note the not-so-subtle implication that Israel was responsible for the rigidity and thus the stalemate. Note the naming of Sadat, but not his opposite number, Begin.
A little rigidity from Israel was certainly understandable in the light of the unprovoked attacks from Egypt in 1948, 1967 and 1973 and the constant terrorism from the Arab side. Israel was about to lose the major Sinai buffer against genocidal Arab intent and get a cold ?peace? in return. Subsequent events have borne that perception out.
Xie Ming/Al Searcher, 118,119,120, you might note that Robin Lustig has taken the time to contribute to this debate and do him the courtesy of a response rather than continuing with your copy and paste propaganda and misquoting of Ben Gurion.
Complain about this comment
To the question of "Will Obama get tough with Israel?" several key factors apply:
a) The control of US politics exercised by AIPAC and the IsraelLobby as detailed in the Mearsheimer and Walt report and as boasted of by Ariel Sharon.
b) The influence of evangelicals who have been convinced (note that Israel gave a Learjet to the evangelical leader, Jerry Falwell) that their salvation depends on fostering the interests of Israel.
c) Public understanding of the continuing ethnic cleansing/genocide practiced by Israel against the native Palestinian population. If the USA participates in the International Criminal Court, this could become documented in criminal proceedings against those responsible.
Complain about this comment
Until a world leader is prepared to implement the UN resolutions on Israel that they should move back to the borders existing as of 1967, there is no point in discussing who will do what.
The best that we can expect is some change to the Israeli attitude that Arabs are second-class people.
While Palastinian militants are censured for extremist views that Israel should be destroyed, that their stolen villages should be recovered, no journalist balances this against the Israeli pledge that any jew who wants to settle in Israel will find a home; How does this set with the removal of settlements?
So let's look at today. So many missiles have been fired against Israel. How many casualties have there been? Not even a goat, I believe. Yet, worthless arab lives have been taken in a blind strike, totalling hundreds. When a Palastinian child throws a stone, the Israeli's destroy houses with their tanks.
The West must take a side. The Americans give billions of dollars to the Israelis. Europe and others must give moral support to the Palastinians.
Complain about this comment
Israeli assault on Hamas kills more than 200
In response, No comment necessaryComplain about this comment
Although I am Jewish and proud of this I now feel that Israel has descended into Nazism.
I do not say this lightly, as I have for some time been wrestling with the ethics of the situation in the middle east. But comparing the Israeli action over the last period of making Gaza into a 'Warsaw Ghetto' and now the murder of innocent people in the last few days no objective viewer can come to any other conclusion.
Complain about this comment
123. merlynson wrote:
When a Palastinian child throws a stone, the Israeli's destroy houses with their tanks.
124. Ed Iglehart wrote:
No comment necessary.
125. davidnissen wrote:
Although I am Jewish and proud of this I now feel that Israel has descended into Nazism.
You guys can spout as much lefty, feelgood, anti-Israel nonsense as you like but I note none of you has the moral compass necessary to point to the fact that Israel targeted Hamas terrorists in those attacks and that the majority killed were terrorists while Hamas deliberately targets Jewish civilians first and foremost in its obsession to destroy Israel by whatever means necessary.
By the way, in the slight chance that any of you are interested in an objective evaluation of events or in the truth, remember that the Palestinians always exaggerate the number of civilians killed in these attacks while playing down the number of terrorists killed.
Any of you know that the Israelis issued warnings to Palestinians to stay away from Hamas centres shortly before the attacks and pinpointed those centres? No, I didn't think so.
Funny how the left always gets so agitated whenever Israel defends herself.
By the way, davidnissen, something tells me you are not genuine.
Complain about this comment
# 125 davidnissen
Next, the right-wing Zionists will call you a "traitor".
You are aware of what the prophets say will happen when the people break the Covenant.
Speak the truth and do your best.
[and get on the mailing list of The Other Israel- otheris.org]
Complain about this comment
How many of these can you spot in this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques
Complain about this comment
I read that 'Mr Brown had spoken to Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and the UK had made clear Israel "must abide by its humanitarian obligations'".
Is this a dramatic change in UK policy? Israel has been in constant and continuous breach of the most basic Geneva IV obligations for decades. I assume Mr Brown means that we'll be really, really cross, rather than that we are contemplating the kind of savage sanctions Israel has been applying to the population of Gaza.
Stupid of me, now I think about it, he means Israel and Israelis will continue to enjoy full access to trade and freedom to travel as though nothing had happened. If any Israelis are dumb enough to place themselves into UK jurisdiction where they could be arrested and charged, we will respond by vigorously suggesting they stay on their plane or return home before any warrant can be served. I hope that if Bin Laden flies into Heathrow he is dumb enough to get off his plane and go through passport control.
Why are Palestinians using violence at all? They should be grateful that the international community has been even mildly disconcerted by Israel?s indisputable contravention of a vast panoply of Laws, Treaties, Conventions and Security Council resolutions. It really is too much for Palestinians to expect us to take seriously the Laws we have passed and the Treaties we have entered into.
The real problem here is not the millions of dollars worth of Israeli precision guided weaponry which has killed hundreds, but the thousands of ?targeted? Palestinian rockets, which have killed whole handfuls of entirely blameless Israelis. We have to recognise that if Israelis elect governments which routinely violate humanitarian obligations that is their right. It is preposterous to argue that Gazans should have a similar right to choose their own representatives. Of course Israel should be allowed to make that choice for them.
Well done Mr Brown, this severe ticking off will really bring Israel up short, and remove any excuse Gazans have for trying to liberate themselves from the hell we have helped Israel create for them.
Complain about this comment
Why don't you phare the question "Will Arab countries get tough on Hamas?
The U.S is taking the just moral stand
Complain about this comment
126 and 130 why will you never answer these two questions.
Would it have been fair of the UK to raze dublin to the ground during the troubles?
and how is the illegal blockade or siege of gaza not a war crime as understood by all others.?
now I am sure your answer will be to some other question , that you will try to make yourselves out as some moral high ground taking good souls.
Next time I am near a computer I can manage better I will bring a pile of quotes to this post with all the "totally not racist " comments you all have made.
126 you asking if others are genuine is genuinely funny.
at last you show some humour.
125 reminds me of many of my UK friends that are jewish
Complain about this comment
ref #131
It's not a war crime to block terrorists.
And unfourtnatly since the Palestinians in Gaza still support the terrorists, Gaza must be turned to rubble.
Most people in Northern Ireland would not have supported continued rocket attacks in civilian areas.
The world must stand behind Israel.
Shame on you protesters at Israeli embassies who were quiet during the missle attacks.
Complain about this comment
I noticed you failed to mention that Israel's strikes against Hamas terrorists have overwhelming support among the American people.
Again when are you going to ask: When will the Arab league get tough on Hamas and Hezbollah?
Complain about this comment
Some perspective
Happy New Year, and may it be the year in which Peace is finally achieved.Peace is with enemies
ed
Complain about this comment
134
"....after all Israelis are the ones who dispossessed and thrown us out of our homeland; not the other way around...."
It is the perpetual insistance on this lie told so many times even some Jews believe it that assures there will never be peace between the Israelis and the people who call themselves Palestinians.
Complain about this comment
MAII,
Say that about the Holocaust, and you could go to jail, but deny al Nakba, and have no fear. You're right, though, Even some Jews can see the truth.Happy new Year
Complain about this comment
Tough luck about the Arab sNACKBAr Iggy. They're here to stay. If they go down, they will take the rest of the world sown with them. They have the power to do that and no reason not to. That includes you and me. Happily, right now, they seem to be doing pretty well. In the current battle Hamas claims to be winning, Israel killed more of its own soldiers by accident than Hamas did by fighting. Facts on the ground. BTW, America isn't giving New York City back to the Indians either.
Complain about this comment
Ed,
The only way you propose for the sorting out of the conflict in the Middle East is the making of concessions by Israel. Demands for concessions from one side only are not going to achieve peace, believe me.
You wonder where the anger of the Israelis comes from? I have written a post about that before, just look above in the thread.
By the way, how do you explain the hatred in Yemen towards the Israelis and the calls for jihad? After all, it is not the Yemeni that are displaced from their homeland. Is it just the Islamic propaganda that does not allow them to see the world from another point of view? To me it looks very much so.
Complain about this comment
Do you feel that Israeli and Arab people are intelligent/competant enough to sort out peace in the region and stop killing each other?
What factors are prolonging the conflict in the Middle East?
Complain about this comment
-marko,
I am starting to despair that the Israelis and the Palestinians will ever achive peace. There is too much 'bad blood' between them now, to allow for any peace in the near future.
You ask what factors are prolonging the conflict? I would say that what started as a conflict based on genuine will of both the Israelis and the Palestinians to have their own homeland and govern themselvs, has deteriorated in a war, in which either side only wants to exact vengence and hurt the other. The continuous attempts across some groups in the Muslim world to represent the war as a religious conflict are certainly not helping. When you introduce the religious fanaticism into a conflict nothing good will come out of it. The more the word jihad is being mentioned, the fewer the chances are that a two state solution will ever be reached. After all, jihad is waged untill all Muslim lands are liberated from the 'infidels' and with that concept well established I do not see a place for a Jewish state in the Middle East. A whole generation of Palestinians and Israelis has now grown with that concept in mind and that mental attitude will be very hard to change.
Complain about this comment
~138 Isenhorn
The only way you propose for the sorting out of the conflict in the Middle East is the making of concessions by Israel. Demands for concessions from one side only are not going to achieve peace, believe me.
Considering all that land that is now called Israel was Palestine and the majority of the arab population were dispossessed of their homes I think the pre-1967 borders agreement is more than a concession from the Palestinians than the Zionists will ever give them!
~7 Isenhorn
Return to pre-1967 borders still does not allow for continuous land link between Gaza and the West bank. Those two territories were not one entity before the 1967 war- Gaza was Egiptian territory, whereas the West bank was part of Jordan.
That ain't Israel's or your problem; that will be the Palestinians and the Arabs problem. They all seem happy with the pre-1967 borders, so should Israel.
Complain about this comment
141
dceilar,
'That ain't Israel's or your problem; that will be the Palestinians and the Arabs problem. They all seem happy with the pre-1967 borders, so should Israel'
Well, in the case of Gaza, Israel has returned to the pre-1967 borders (Gaza was occupied after the Six-day war, and Israel withdrew a couple of years ago). However, as we have seen Gaza is still a problem for Israel and the rest of the world. The democratically elected terorist group Hamas is not happy with those borders and is still determined to obliterate Israel, so is Iran. So, what acceptance of pre-1967 borders are you talking about? As I have said before, Gaza on its own is not a viable state, nor has it ever been or is likely to be.
'Considering all that land that is now called Israel was Palestine and the majority of the arab population were dispossessed of their homes I think the pre-1967 borders agreement is more than a concession from the Palestinians than the Zionists will ever give them!'
According to you, all the Israelis that want to lve in their own country are Zionists? There were Jews also expelled from the Arab countries. What are those that expelled them? Islamists?
Complain about this comment
#142 Isenhorn
Thanks for the reply. Israel's unilaterial military and 8,000 settlers withdrawal from Gaza; and the extra 12,000 new settlers in the West Bank is stretching the argument about Israel returning to pre-1967 borders a wee bit too far. Moreover, Gaza is still effectively controlled by Israel. You say Hamas isn't happy about Gaza's borders (I'll take your word for it), but neither is Israel with it's borders.
According to you, all the Israelis that want to live in their own country are Zionists?
No. I'm saying that the land they live on was Palestine. The pre-1967 borders agreement is more of a concession that Zionists will ever give to the Palestinians.
This article in The Guardian sums up my opinions very nicely.
All sides agreeing to the pre-1967 borders is the only route to peace as far as I can see.
Complain about this comment
#139 _marko
What factors are prolonging the conflict in the Middle East?
Colonialism.
Israel has a choice of land grabbing or peace. It chooses land every time. It's colonial expansionism with the aim of Gross Israel.
Complain about this comment
Dceilar
I agree Israel is a Right wing Nationalist Country which follows a policy of Apartheid, Colonial Expansionism and on occasion Genocide.
The biggest mistake in world history was the creation of Israel on the basis of a make believe story in an old book.
No wonder Palestinan Freedom fighter fire rockets at Israel if I'd had my country stolen from me I'd do the same.
Complain about this comment
#145
Oh, but you do, WhiteEnglishProud, you do! You alredy fire rockets at other people! Oh sorry, that is different, they did not steal your country, you do it just because that is where your interests lay.
By the way, what do you call the militants in Iraq and Afganistan- are they also Freedom Fighters or terrorists? Just asking.
Complain about this comment
I have never fired a rocket at anybody.
The Militants in Afganistan are not Freedom fighters because they do not fight for freedom they fight for the right to impose there belief's on all Afgani's.
Iraqis who fight for freedom are freedom fighters, those who fight to oppress their people are terrorists.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud,
Maybe you have not fired a rocket at anybody, but the British government has certainly done so. It has done so against peple who fight for their kind of freedom-be it to impose their belief or to liberate their country.
I mentioned that in order to point out the fact that the distinction between a terrorist and a Freedom Fighter is sometimes very elusive and depends on the point of view. So far I have not seen any evidence to convince me that Hamas is any different from the Taliban in Afganistan. Both are supported by a certain part of the populaton in the respective territory and for them their fight is just. The way we label them reflects our own personal opinion of their cause. The same goes for the occasion when we describe the actions of Israel.
Complain about this comment
Isenhorn, (142),
Israel may have "withdrawn", but she has held Gaza completely captive by controlling all land, sea and air access, as she proposes for any "palestinian state" under the ridiculous "roadmap" and Israel's "reservations". She has also completely refused to deal with the democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, and has jailed all of them she could get her hands on...This is not the road to Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
TrueToo
Re: Xie_Ming. I have discovered more information from that long blog of Justin Webb's called American Exceptionalism. The comment in question was #592, with comments opposing him from chronophobe (#607) and Seans Pa (#609).
Although Xie_Ming was trying to reproduce an article from ABC news, he linked it from a repugnant website. At the bottom of the webpage it shows who is responsible for that website. Given Ming's knowledge of the middle east I find it hard to swallow his ignorance of this man. Ming may still be innocent of the charge of course (he may not have been aware of the website's founder), but until I hear from him (or his reincarnations) his commitment to Israel's existence on pre-1967 borders I will accept your charge of anti-semitism against him and offer you my apologies.
Complain about this comment
Ed,
I completely understand why Israel wants to control all entries into Gaza. After all, the only cargo the 'democratically elected' terrorist group Hamas has brought in, was made of weapons.
You should not attach too great an importance to the fact that Hamas is allegedly democratically ellected. After all, Hitler was also democratically ellected.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS