Taking Sides On Israel/Palestine Is Stupid
I’ve been struggling with commentary on the current Gaza apocalypse and finally discovered my truth about it. Taking sides is dumb and totally misses both history and possible solutions.
This endless terrifying conflict is no one’s fault and everyone’s fault. No one in the sense that blame cannot be placed with one party. That would really simplify solutions if that singular blame could be found. It belongs to all of us: Palestinians, Israelis and the international community.
I find the latest round of rallies for one side or another,including right here in Delaware, utterly pointless and unproductive. Front page of the DL on 07/25. They just exacerbate the tragedy and rage.
In the blame sphere, let’s start with the international community. The 1947 partitioning, taking the region out of the hands of colonial Britain and putting it in the hands of the neophyte U.N. was stupid. Stupidity driven by international guilt for permitting the holocaust and abandoning European Jews. The U.N. then was simply unprepared to properly consult with the existing Palestinian people in preparing for the Partitioning, if it was to make sense at all. Unprepared to support the relocation and settlement of the European and Middle Eastern Jews relocating to the region, and protect the existing residents from destabilization of their communities and provide appropriate international funding to help create a peaceful transformation of the area. The result? Jews had to fight their way in and in doing so displaced 700,000 Arabs relegated to refugee camps still existing today and housing 7 million Arabs in not so hospitable neighboring Arab countries.
Now for blame within the Palestinian and Arab communities. The remaining residents simply failed to secure or provide the resources necessary to build a viable economy to sustain its people to provide a hopeful future and create a government which could provide adequate services. This led to generations of frustrated and angry Palestinians who spent their energies building hostility and ultimately many rounds of armed conflict with an emerging, supported and prospering Israel. Their main focus became destroying Israel rather than building a sustainable society. Palestinian support for right wing, theocratic war makers making their policy undermined their society building needs. And failing to recognize that their hostility only energized the worldwide Jewish community to “never again” endure the apocalypse brought upon them by Fascists and the Catholic Church.
As for blame for Israel? Plenty too. a 47 year occupation, initially justified right after the war of 1967, just was totally counterproductive. It bred antagonism, hatred and distrust, not security from attack. It created attack after endless attack. To add insult to injury, the Zionist settlements, populated by people thinking they had some kind of divine right to be squatters in Palestine. And these squatters bred more generations of haters whose abuse and resulting dysfunction created a continuing security threat, not a peaceful neighbor. Israelis forgot their own history of abuse at the hands of Europeans and their need to escape. They had a place to which to escape at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians; the Palestinians had no escape routes. These are really smart people. Why didn’t they get that?
So, how then can we expect two highly dysfunctional societies to solve their own problem and make peace? One a huge, prosperous, fear filled bully. The other a smaller, raging victim with no leverage or options. I think the answer may be that this is an impossible expectation. The solution lies in some form of international peace making intervention.
Maybe the U.N. is not up to the task. Perhaps some kind of task force of diplomats from the Arab League and NATO, with U.N. Peacekeepers on the ground. What are your ideas?
Tags: Featured
With permission from my friend, activist Nick Cooper, I am reposting his article from Houston Free Press.
In a World Full of Camera Phones, Your Cowboy Narrative Isn’t Gonna Fly
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page Send by Email
IsraelCowboy
By Nick Cooper
If you don’t agree with us that comparative civilian death tolls of 800 to 3 indicate a slaughter instead of a war, what is there left to say? We’re not going to pretend that both sides are military or political equals, or that Israel is threatened by Hamas.
If you want to deny that Israel is guilty of ethnic cleansing and apartheid laws, fine, but why try to convince us? There are plenty of people who are also happy to deny it across the U.S., you can go talk to them. We can’t be convinced that creating a Jewish state in an area heavily populated by predominately non-Jewish people would even have been possible without ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Every year, the criteria of ethnic cleansing are met, as Israel moves Palestinians out of apartments in East Jerusalem and areas of the West Bank, and Bedouins out of the Negev.
If you are one of the Americans who like to talk about how Palestinians should renounce violence and turn to non-violent forms of resistance, but then you don’t support BDS, then what non-violent resistance are you waiting for? BDS is the non-violent Israel/Palestine justice project that requests international support, but you have nothing but critiques of it? Fine, but stop talking about your desire to see the Palestinian Gandhi emerge. It’s cool that you understand the importance of Gandhi now, but that doesn’t mean that you would have been one of the few British people who agreed with and recognized Gandhi for what he was while he was alive.
Are you still pretending that the two-state solution is viable? Why? Are you running for office or something? Anyone who can read a map can see that one state is the only remaining possibility. This two-state solution nonsense is a stalling tactic, and it’s dishonest to pretend it’s Palestine’s future.
However, if you acknowledge that Israel is a colonial project that has elements of the US Indian wars, the segregated South, and apartheid South Africa, if you acknowledge that every settlement on occupied land is a continuation of the crime of ethnic cleansing, if you acknowledge that non-violent resistance to illegal occupation is happening in Palestine and desperately needs support in the US, if you acknowledge that Israel prefers missiles to negotiations, if you acknowledge that the two-state solution and US brokered peace process are just stalling tactics, then great! We need people who are willing to call it like it is.
The joining of two distinct cultures into a multi-ethnic state happened when the segregated South fell and when South African apartheid fell. So, it’s not some foreign unknown territory. It’s what the US is working towards right now, despite white supremacy still holding on and beckoning backwards against immigrants. You don’t have to be a visionary to imagine Israelis, Palestinians, Bedouins, and African immigrants all living together as citizens. It is familiar to anyone who has walked around European or American cities.
Integration isn’t some rainbow candy-land, it’s still capitalism, it’s still racist and sexist, it’s still an environmental nightmare, it’s still dangerous, it’s still a war machine, it’s still unsustainable, but at least it’s not the Trail of Tears. That is the alternative — a once free indigenous people living on reservations in squalor. However, unlike with American Indians, Palestinians have cameras and connections around the world, so this time, everyone can watch it. On the Mavi Marmara, Israel confiscated every cell phone and camera, but how could they ever do that in Palestine? Unlike when Europeans Americans could pretend they were brave cowboys, Israel is exposed. Lots of people around the world know how ugly occupation is. They will hate Israel, and sadly, many will blame all Jews for it.
There are no other destinies left for Israel / Palestine. It’s integration or reservations. We’re for integration. Unless you’re willing to step up and call out the occupation for what it is, we’re gonna have to assume you’re stalling, pretending, or otherwise putting on some sideshow while Israel continues moving directly, during war or relative peace, towards reservations.
I have for a long time believed that the two state solution was the most viable idea. But, no more. Can you ever imagine Israel giving up their military? Can you ever imagine a new Palestinian state, supposedly co-equal to Israel, created without the right to have a standing military for defense, or for that matter, to defend the state against insurrection?
Just registering my strong dissent with that very problematic commentary.
These OPs are quite strange, and their assumptions are incorrect. Israel is a good country, seeking to protect itself from Hamas’ rocket attacks, which need to stop. The problem looks simple — Hamas doesn’t appear to be actually *interested* in building a functional Palestine first and foremost; their top priorities instead are seeking to destroy Israel and kill Jews. How can you negotiate with someone who’s willing to kill themselves, hoping they can also kill you by doing so?
I’m attempting to hide in the philosophy that the current problem is Israel’s right-wing government. I wasnt carrying out war on Islam when W was president. and I have to believe that most Israelis would support a more peaceful, unified path if given a chance by their government. The Conservatives have been able to form a coalition government and win just enough elections through fear mongering to run the show. We got a taste of it from 2002-2005.
The big problem is… reasonable, peaceful people double down on their irrational fears every time something like a rocket lands in their neighborhood… which happens constantly now. To deny that there are powerful men in the Palestinian community who will continue to make war, no matter what changes about Israel is as silly as the All-the Jews-Blaming-Europeans running around, reminding everyone why Israel was created in the first place. To say that a most, or even a majority of Palestinians wouldnt jump at the chance to be law abiding, BUT EQUAL, citizens of Israel basically makes you a bigot.
GDGM….. your last line… about the suicide attacks. I dont think you should use that argument. There hasnt been a suicide bombing since 2008. there were 2 that year…. and only the bombers died. That bit is the same thing we used to Intern the Japanese during WW2. For that matter, what do you call a soldier who is willing to die in a hail of gunfire for their country? Why would you fear that person less? Those little bumpersticker arguments are why this situation is so messed up.
reasonable, peaceful people double down on their irrational fears every time something like a rocket lands in their neighborhood…
What a bunch of drama queens! Always demanding that their govenment keep them safe. Why can’t they just turn the other cheek?
There hasnt been a suicide bombing since 2008
In large part this is because of the tightly controlled Israel-Gaza barrier completed in 2001:
Hamas suicide bombings begat the barrier; now Hamas rockets and tunnels are drawing Israeli shells and troops into Gaza.
I think I was misinterpreted. A rocket landing in your neighborhood is a serious thing, and reacting to it with a “keep my family safe by any means” is a normal human reaction. That reaction, times the population of a country can be a pretty scary thing… case in point.. THIS. What I was TRYING to say is, Israelis arent the blood thirsty monsters than Europeans (and others) are making them out to be.
I cannot think of a single situation that is similar: the Palestinians are the only people I’ve ever heard of who could win their war of independence by not fighting.
The Israeli public are tired of the constant skirmishing, and tired of the almost universal conscription, and tired of the taxes to pay for all of this. If the Palestinians just stopped fighting for a couple of years, the Israeli public would force the government to go along with a two-state solution; if the government wouldn’t comply, the public would change the government. That’s pretty easy to do in a parliamentary democracy in which the government has to put together coalitions.
And maybe a majority of the Palestinians would go along with that, but they are allowing Hamas to lead, allowing a group absolutely opposed to a two-state solution with real peace to exist, and that means continued fighting. Hamas believe that they can still somehow win a victory, still somehow destroy Israel as a Jewish state. I think that’s a pipe dream, but it doesn’t matter what I think; it’s what they believe that matters.
If the Palestinians would just roll over and be good, the country that was forced on their grandparents and who has a very bad record of keeping promises made about land divisions will probably let them have a few square, landlocked miles to call their own….maybe.
” a few square, landlocked miles”
Landlocked? Almost half the perimeter of Gaza is beachfront. The blockade is of Hamas’s own making. Last time Israel allowed construction material into Gaza they used it to build terror tunnels. Anyway, there isn’t that much land to squabble over. There isn’t really any way to slice the geography to make it more appealing.
I used to think a two-state solution would be ideal if we could just get Israel to stop building settlements. Now I don’t think either side is interested in a two-state solution. The settlements and occupation aren’t even the primary issue anymore. Both sides are in an existential battle.
Well, Ben, what other choices do they have? Ariel Sharon simply walked out of Gaza, forcing out the Israeli settlers, and told the Palestinians, here, it’s yours, do with it what you will. The Palestinians could have tried to make a go of it, but Hamas wouldn’t let them.
Someone has to be willing to let the other guy get in the last shot, and neither side seems to be willing to do that. You might think that it’s unfair, but since the Palestinians are the weaker party in this, I’d say that if they aren’t willing to let the Israelis get in the last shot, it’ll never happen.
And in this situation, there has to be a winner and a loser. Since the Palestinians regard Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state as a loss, accepting the two-state solution means, inter alia, that the Palestinians must lose. In a two-state solution, Israel wins, and both sides will see it that way.
Oh, there’ll be a few Israeli irredentists, who will see anything less than a “greater Israel” as a loss, but they are well in the minority in Israel.
I’d point out here that Israel doesn’t border all of Gaza; there is a border with Egypt as well, and the Egyptians have blockaded it, too.
the Egyptians have blockaded it, too.
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel that it wants to keep. If Egypt allowed Hamas to import weapons or other materials to support attacks on Israel, it would be perceived by as a breach of that treaty, with some justification. Israel would then be compelled to take action on the Egyptian border to stop the weapons, and then where would we be?
Let Egypt be an object lesson to Hamas on the benefits of making peace with Israel.
Puck, the landlocked i was referring to is the West Bank. I cant see Israel agreeing to anything that would put “Palestine” on both sides. The most anyone can hope for out of the BiBi faction is one Palestinian territory.
I am still processing recent events, but I’m thinking now the West Bank should be recognized as “Palestine,” with Gaza being a semi-autonomous district within Israel. But that would require good will which is currently lacking on both sides. So I am at a loss for what to think.
Puck, that might work, from the perspective of us cool, calm Westerners, just like the two-state solution has been obvious to the West ever since 1968 or 1969. The problem is, and has always been, that what seems reasonable and logical and obvious to us just doesn’t appear so in the slightest to the people actually involved.
There has been a hot-and-cold war in the area, continually, since 1948, and while Israel has won most of the battles, it has never actually won the war. There were “hot” events, such as the four big hot wars, in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, but they always ended with cease-fires, with Israel letting the Arab nations off the hook militarily.
No one here will like this, but we have to remember how the Allies won World War II: we bombed their manufacturing infrastructure to bits, we slaughtered their civilians almost indiscriminately through mass bombing campaigns, and we captured or killed most of Germany’s and Japan’s fighting aged men. Germany and Japan surrendered because they were completely beaten, had virtually nothing left with which to continue the war, and no prospect of regaining anything with which to continue the war for many years.
Israel never did that to the Palestinians, and so while the Arab fighters of 1967 and 1973 might not want to fight again, they were quickly replaced by the boys who weren’t fighting aged in 1967 and 1973, but grew up fast and hard after those hot events.
Israel never marched to Damascus and killed the Syrian leaders; Israel never marched to Amman and hanged the King of Jordan. And Israel even allowed Yassir Arafat to wallow around in Ramallah. After World War II, we hunted down and captured the German and Japanese leaders, tried to make it look legal by coming up with a wholly unprecedented tribunal, and then hanged them.
It is worth it to remember that the Palestinans are forced to live with the Israelis taking their land and with it, their hopes of having their own state. Hamas, the PLO or whoever else says they are fighting for Palestinians *do* have a cause. Unfortunately that cause is used by Israelis to make themselves out to be victims, when there is simply no reason to expect that the people already living in these lands to NOT fight back when their homes are taken from them. The people who stand for those being mistreated aren’t the best faces for this, but there aren’t any others.
The Jewish national presence in those lands is supported by 20th century history as well as ancient history, but then so are the Palestinian claims. Therefore the land must be either shared or divided, in which case you have to draw a border somewhere. Unless you are of the “push the Jews into the sea” school of thought.
The Israelis are the ones who need to know about a divided state. If you looked at those maps, they are the only ones persistently expanding their presence. That can’t continue and expect any peaceful resolution.
Agreed, but that isn’t the whole solution. Suppose the 1967 borders were implemented today, and Greater Israel given up. Do you believe Palestinian leadership would be willing or able to stop terrorist attacks then? I don’t.
And then, once there is a recognized Palestine state, it would suddenly acquire state accountability. Israel would be unquestionably be able to retaliate for any attacks and expect UN backing under Article 51.
Do you believe Palestinian leadership would be willing or able to stop terrorist attacks then?
Hamas, maybe not. I think the current formulation of the PLO would. But a real state, without Israeli interference or controls takes the wind out of every bit of moral outrage the Palestinians inspire. An Israel that welcomes any Jew in the world to make a home there, but is still appropriating Palestinan land to do it is no way a victim here.
I know critics would like to see the US just yank all aid to Israel. I don’t want that, but still I don’t see why we haven’t been able to get them to stop building settlements. Unless the theocratic takeover of American government has caused us to tacitly support Greater Israel. You know, to hasten Armageddon and the return of Jesus, or something.
I just don’t think there is enough water or soil for a two-state solution. Maybe there was at one time, but not now after population growth. I don’t pretend to know what the answer is right now.
I want my government to stop being complicit in the annexation of Palestinian land. I don’t know why we can’t put a stop to it, but not stopping it just provides permission. I do know that I wouldn’t be quite so distressed over this if my government wasn’t complicit in it.
And if there is water and soil for one state, there is water and soil for two. It is still a desert, so they are always living on engineered solutions to both problems.
Maybe the rise in sea levels will wash them all away. That’s what we need – another Flood. Lord knows they both have it coming.
Interesting comments since my last post, but fundamentally incorrect. If Israel has _withdrawn_ people from Gaza before the current Hamas attacks, how are they “appropriating” supposedly Palestinian land? If Israel left behind greenhouses and other resources in Gaza, why didn’t Hamas choose to build and expand from that existing infrastructure to help Palestinians, but instead chose to build tunnels and get further rockets to *attack* Israelis? And why is another country — Egypt — also taking notice of this?
I’m approaching this from a straightforward perspective: I am not Israeli or Jewish myself, however I have Israeli friends, colleagues and co-workers *in* Israel as well as the USA right now, who are telling me about what they’re seeing and hearing. My Israeli associates are all good people, and want a peaceful solution to their disturbing situation. But as I noted before, Hamas is still attacking them. Hamas is also said to be storing weapons in Palestinian civilian areas, and in fact have accidentally hit those storage areas by their own missiles gone awry. Not a “bumpersticker” summation, as ‘Ben’ tried to state.
Not taking any side here- just pointing out a similarity…..
Whites came to America- we made colonies said we would not expand more made treaties and broke them
We did it year after year for a very long time- kept taking land- expanding our territory and annexing more in
We kept fighting the Native peoples- killing them and stealing more land …. We shoved them further and further west- into inhospitable land …..
Living peace fully side by side didn’t work out so well for them- did it ?
We welcomed those like us to settle here- regardless of the fact that there were those living there….. Israel invites all like them and does the same thing
It didn’t work out well for one group on this continent. – it won’t work out well there either ….
Puck wrote:
That was the deal, with some very minor adjustments, that President Clinton negotiated with Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat; Prime Minister Barak agreed, but Mr Arafat rejected the whole thing. Mr Clinton said that it was the best deal the Palestinians could ever hope to get.
Aoine described conquest, which is exactly how the European settlers and their descendants took over this continent. And if we are honest with ourselves, every nation on earth, with the exception of a rare place like Iceland, is there as a result of conquest, of one people being beaten and supplanted by another. Part of the Israelis’ problem is that they have not been brutal enough conquerors. All of us here are beneficiaries of the Trail of Tears, whether we like to admit it or not.
The Israelites beat the Canaanites, the Babylonians conquered Israel, the Babylonians withdrew, the Romans conquered Israel, the Romans expelled the Jews, the Byzantines held the land, the Byzantines were eventually converted over to the Ottomans, the Ottomans were defeated by the British, the whole area has seen conquest after conquest after conquest.
What the Israelis didn’t do is expel the Arabs from the additional land they conquered in 1967; real conquerors would have done that. It would have been brutal and it would have been harsh, but we wouldn’t be seeing the problems we see there today if that had happened.
Desire precedes change. Without desire the 60 plus years of strife continues indefinitely until there is but one protagonist remaining. It’s tribal warfare and throughout history tribes have been warring to gain supremacy, land, whatever. Such was the case with Native Americans, Irelands Protestants and Catholics, Sunni and Shia, Jews and Arabs (Jews and Muslims), et al. The names, the year, the location, all change. But not so the essentials of the conflicts.
America and other countries, while having checkered beginnings (i.e. Australia and the Aborigines) have managed to get past tribal conflict. I suppose this is the result of gaining supremacy and with it the ability to suppress the other tribes and evolving towards more humane actions regarding those tribes. Will this eventually happen in the Middle East? Who knows? What is clear is that the claims of righteousness by either side are utterly false. Both tribes share blame.
How should we react? Well for once, outrage would be an appropriate response, but nothing more than that, except to cease all aid to both parties (except for humanitarian aid to bury dead, heal the wounded and feed the hungry) and then go on about our lives. And perhaps a prayer to whatever God you worship to intercede because it is clear that we as a nation have no influence to stem the tide of tribal warfare such as we discovered in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where man’s inhumanity towards man has been on full display forever.
I want my government to stop being complicit in the annexation of Palestinian land.
And then what? Somehow the logical outcome of that thought is never followed through to its conclusion. It is a passive-aggressive way of stating “push the Jews into the sea.” Is there any part of Israel that is undisputed?
Israel depends on US aid precisely because it has foregone unconditional conquests in the past. The international community wanted to stop Israeli counterattacks from razing Damascus and Cairo, so now the international community bears responsibility for the outcome.
The various ethnic groups in the old Yugoslavia had been living together in an enforced tolerance for decades under Josip Broz Tito. When Marshall Tito went to his eternal reward, Yugoslavia came up with the idea of a “rotating federal presidency,” so all of the ethnic groups would have a turn at leadership. The crisis came when President Slobodan Milosevic declined to step down after his turn was up, and he was able to unleash all of the ethnic strife that that region had known in the past. Somehow, living as neighbors for two generations still wasn’t enough to end the old ethnic hatreds.
I can’t see the Israelis and the Arabs living side-by-side in anything better than a smoldering tolerance, for a couple of generations at the very least, because it doesn’t seem to work differently elsewhere. Heck, after 250 years of living side-by-side in supposed peace, the Anglophone and Francophone Canadians might just break up, and Scotland will be holding a plebiscite on leaving the United Kingdom after over 500 years.
And then what?
Seriously? That’s up to them. The Israelis are entitled to a place to live. The Palestinians are entitled to a place to live. It is up to them to figure out how to get there at this point. But the US should stop supporting settlements and should be in the business of pressuring Israelis to give them back.
But the US should stop supporting settlements and should be in the business of pressuring Israelis to give them back.
Agreed. But the original statement wasI want my government to stop being complicit in the annexation of Palestinian land. Some would take that to include any Israeli presence in the region. I agree new annexations should stop and the West Bank settlements should be rolled back. Golan Heignts territory should be contingent on a peace treaty with Syria. Then the international community will have to make new credible guarantees of Israel’s security, especially with regard to Iran.
I am thinking of the US complicity in supporting the settlements that expand Israel’s 1967 borders. Any final solution probably won’t be the 1967 borders, but it should be close.
The jihadi takeovers in Iraq and Syria are a wild card for security.
But should not be used to hold a Palestinan homeland hostage.
True but it increases the responsibility of the international community to maintain Israel’s security, else Israel has to do it themselves and all bets are off. Especially if Palestinians choose to become a jihadi fifth column.
Cassandra wrote:
You realize, of course, that, for many Palestinians, that is the definition of losing: if the Israelis are entitled to a place to live, then the actions of the Jewish immigrants in setting up their own nation are legitimized.
Most of the Palestinians would (probably) grudgingly accept that, but Hamas will not . . . and Hamas are the leaders that the Palestinians support.
The international community enabled/created the current crisis and thus have the responsibility to intervene, roll back/dismantle the settlements and demilitarize the region. And prepare to defend both Israel and a new 1967 border Palestinian state from any military incursion. And provide reparations and relocation and funding for the Palestinian refugees in the region, which might include turning over those nice settlements for their use.
I know it is a fantasy to believe the Likud and much of political Israel would buy the disarmament; they also sure won’t buy the concept of a single state, sadly because of the religious right there, but at least a single state could have a standing army to withstand insurrection or outside incursion. Maybe that is the bargaining chip.
Dana,
For many Israelis it is the definition of losing.
I dont know if you are aware of it, but you have a bias against the Palestinians. “most Palestinians would (probably) GRUDGINGLY accept that”. I dont think you are making your points in good faith. I think you’ve decided to side with Israel, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. I think all you know of what the Palestinian people “think” you’ve gained from media coverage, which has been so awful and full of bias that it has, itself, become a story.
I dont doubt that you’ve gotten information from outlets other than Fox, but you cant know what’s in those people’s minds. Only the actions of those that made the news. You obviously see Israel as, if not innocent, less culpable and I really think cold indifference is the way to go here. The goal should be to stop the violence, NOT for Israel to “win”.
“. and Hamas are the leaders that the Palestinians support.”
Like how you support President Obama? Hamas, with all those weapons and willingness to blow up kids? How free do you REALLY think those elections were?
Mr Merriman wrote:
Really? And what form would such intervention take? You’re talking about sending in United Nations troops — meaning: the armies of whatever nations agreed to join such a force — into land controlled by the Israelis, and forcibly expel the settlers and destroy their homes.
Remember: Ariel Sharon had to use military force to remove the Israeli settlers in Gaza, where there were far fewer of them than in the West Bank. I’d very much doubt that all of the settlers in Judea and Samaria would be willing to leave, just on the UN’s orders.
Ben wrote:
I don’t know how free those elections were, but that almost doesn’t matter: Hamas could not operate in Gaza without the support of the people amongst whom they hide. The people of Gaza provide Hamas with food, with shelter, with supplies, and even if the Hamas fighters are just thugs, that doesn’t mean the locals don’t support them.
Hamas isn’t separate from the Palestinians; they are Palestinians themselves, with wives and girlfriends and parents and children and uncles and aunts and nephews throughout the population.
Ben wrote:
True enough, as I have mentioned before, but they don’t seem to be a large enough part of the Israeli public to matter.
Oh, Ben, I am perfectly aware of it: I absolutely support the Israelis in this! In fact, I believe that the Israelis should have expelled all of the Arabs following the 1967 war, and annexed the land, thereby giving themselves shorter, more defensible borders. That they didn’t do so then has led to the current situation, and it’s just no longer an option.
But I’m trying to be a realist here, and if I support the Israelis, I still recognize that it is the attitude of the Palestinians which controls the situation. If they’d just stop fighting, the Israeli public would force the government to grant independence to the Palestinians in a couple of years; if Benjamin Netanyahu resisted, they’d throw him out of office, something that’s pretty easy to do in a parliamentary democracy which depends on minor parties to form ruling coalitions.
@D ” If they’d just stop fighting, the Israeli public would force the government to grant independence…”
…and thus the continual prodding. You do perhaps know Israel’s role in the lead up to violence?
Here’s a basic idea… If you do something with the sole intention of inflaming your neighbor, then… if he then strikes back at you, then you get to burn down his house.
Right? You support that 100% with unwavering and uncritical support.
” but they don’t seem to be a large enough part of the Israeli public to matter.”
Maybe not the Israeli PUBLIC, but they have infested the Knesset, so it doesnt really matter WHAT the Israeli public thinks.
And this…” I believe that the Israelis should have expelled all of the Arabs following the 1967 war, ” is just flat out disgusting.
Israeli exists because Euro Christians couldn’t be trusted to treat other ethnic/religious groups (Jews among them) like humans. To say that Israel should turn around and do the same thing….. Clearly something we wont come to an agreement on.
Ben makes excellent points! Remember, Ben, that Dana is coming into this debate from a “Christian biblical perspective” which is completely ‘effed up. His support of Israel is a means to a fairy tale (read: biblical) end where the Jews don’t fare so well. Just sayin’
Pandora wrote:
What you are “Just sayin'” is something about which you know nothing, because my position has nothing to do with a “Christian biblical perspective.” Given that you won’t find a single word I have written in support of that, it’s obvious that you have just assumed something on which you had no information.
Dana, I guess it doesnt feel good to have your motives defined by someone you dont think has all the information does it?
Perhaps next time you condemn the Palestinians … or advocate for their diaspora (what do you think will happen to them if they are expelled from Israel? surely you are aware of the 1970 expulsion from Jordan) … you’ll remember that.
Im still uncomfortable with your final solution to this problem. Here is hoping more humane heads than yours and BiBi’s prevail.
Ok, here’s a framework proposal that at least to me makes sense, though crude and not fleshed out with detail. Let the experts do that.
First, the major premises:
. Israel will never agree to disarm unilaterally
. Thus, two co-equal states can’t fly
. Neither party will make peace voluntarily due to their dysfunction and pathology
. Most of their respective previous demands must be met
. The international community made this mess, it has to fix it
. World peace and security is jeopardized with the current state of conflict
So, here goes:
. An international intervention, first offered voluntarily and if denied, forced on the two parties…probably with the UN as a peacekeeping force but with major trusted groups from both sides providing the reorganization: ie: the Arab League, UN and NATO.
. The New government has co-equal legislative, judicial and executive representation nationally. The President and Prime Minister alternative between Israeli and Palestinian (Arab and Jew) each election cycle; equal seats in Knesset and courts, irrespective of ultimate ethnic mix.
. The right of return honored, using international funding and housing starting with relocation of refugees and settlers and reuse of settlements.
. Temporarily demilitarize Israel and disarm Palestinians.
. Create a single state with new constitution protecting both Palestinians, Israelis, Jews and Muslims, likely within ’67 borders.
. Restore a national single state military after stabilization and withdrawl of occupying peacekeepers for future defense against outside attack or internal insurrection.
. Similar governance of Jerusalem, but to include Christian representation.
. Equal protection of all religious/ethnic groups.
. Those on either side unwilling to abide by such a construct are offered immunity and relocation elsewhere in the world.
. The international community provides military and economic security until the country and economy is restarted.
Ben wrote:
It’s not a matter of not feeling good, but setting the record straight.
Perhaps I was unclear: I believe that the Israelis should have done that immediately following the 1967 war, but I don’t think that it’s possible now. By the end of 1968 the situation had started to settle in, and by then, it was too late.
The Israelis hoped that if things were uncomfortable enough, the Palestinians would emigrate on their own, but that didn’t happen.
Mr Merriman, the biggest problem with your proposed solutions is that they don’t recognize the reality of Zionism: the Jews learned, the hardest way possible, that they simply cannot depend upon other people for their safety and security.
We’re all safe here in the good old US of A, not really worried that the majority are somehow going to round up some disfavored group, but for the Jews of Israel, people who came mostly from the survivors of World War II, the lessons are all to clear. Theodor Herzl saw it coming, back in the 19th Century, long before the Third Reich, from the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. What you see as reasonable and rational is, to them, just plain garbage.
The problem with the framework or any framework for that matter is that it must be precipitated by a real desire on the part of both parties. Israel needs more room (you know, birthright and all that) and the Palestinians want what they lost. Two contradictory and incompatible objectives. It is not worth our time, energy, money, or attention. It is an intractable situation with impossible demands by both sides. We waste resources on those who do not value life other than their own. Aren’t there hungry children in America that we can feed instead?
Read my proposal, Dana, before responding. Israel will have to voluntarily do nothing; this solution would be imposed on them, willing or not, though willing is better. Note too I acknowledge their pathology, thus imposing the solution. Imposing is better than annihilation.
History says your wrong. Zionists accepted the partitioning imposed by the international community and they have long accepted and trusted America’s pledge for their security; that would remain.
Dave, I’ve in recent years been persuaded by your view, mainly through long discussions with probably my dearest friend and mentor, one of the most brilliant and studied persons I’ve ever known. He is of Russian Jewish ancestry though American and Texas born and bred. But I thought I’d give it one last shot, being a compulsive fixer.
I also am solution-oriented, but I’ve learned that solutions are only viable when a people, nation, or society actually wants those solutions. For many, the struggle the is not the means but and end unto itself. For without the struggle there is no “will to meaning”.
Diaspora, persecution, anti-Semitism. That’s the Jewish identity and without those, who are they? What motivates the Palestinians, aside from the loss of their homeland, I can’t say, but I imagine it is something fairly similar, and they find their own meaning in that struggle. I believe they both suffer a form of existential frustration when we deny them their struggle through misguided peace efforts.
The solution they seek is to be left to their never ending struggle for that is where they find their purpose in life. Unfortunately, they seem to also find their purpose in death, but it’s a choice they’ve both made.
Survival of the fittest folks, the world is moving into an era of singularity supported by technology. Primitive cultures and ways of thinking will not sustain. Dog eat dog world, the selfish gene sustains. Sad to say but if you want a seat at the table, its time to get westernized. Drop your religion, drop your pride, and learn to coexsist. Singularity!!!! We are all one!
Speaking of survival, why didn’t the U.S. buy a protective dome system for the Palestinians, especially those in Gaza? Wouldn’t that be a grand idea.
Mr Merriman wrote:
Imposed? You did say that, but that’s not realistic: only NATO or the United Nations could do that, and the United States would veto such action by either.
But, ignoring an American veto for the time being, to impose such a thing on the Israelis would mean some coalition of other nations contributing military forces to go in and attack Israel. I’m having something of a difficult time figuring out just which nations would contribute those forces, knowing that a whole lot of their soldiers would wind up dead.
The Jews accepted a partition which gave them the land they already had; it was to their advantage to do so. At the time, the nascent state of Israel was poorly armed, and under an arms embargo, and having to manufacture much of their arms themselves; if they dreamed of gaining more territory, it wasn’t seen as probable in the near future. Those conditions are not anywhere close to the conditions of today.
Dana, Israel is not “land they already had”; much of what resembles Israel today was temporarily occupied by the British following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, who “had it” for hundreds of years before that. There were no defined borders other than those approximated by the Brits and then the Turks. Partitioning and the UN defined the borders. The UN can redo this, again.
As for your crystal ball on what the US or NATO might or might not do, pure speculation on your part. World discussion can set a new course, possibly, with some goodwill for all and peace for the region.
What relevance is there regarding differing conditions in 1947 and today? Conditions differences also show similarities; Israeli’s had to fight their way in to create a different paradigm.
Now Palestinians are trying to fight their way to a different paradigm. In that, they have similarities. Of course, the fighting part is tragic and not the only recourse in either era.
Mr Merriman wrote:
Actually, it may well be the only recourse in both eras, because you have two sides who want very conflicting things, and they are willing to fight for what they want.
Compromise comes only from those who are willing to compromise, only from those who would rather accept a compromise than fight. What we see as the rational compromise, which is pretty much hardening the 1967 borders into two states, perhaps with some minor adjustments, does not appeal to the Palestinians as acceptable enough to not fight a war over. The Israelis probably would accept such a compromise — Prime Minister Ehud Barak did, in 2000 — but unless both sides do, there can be no peace.
@D “The Israelis probably would accept such a compromise”
Ha!