Meanwhile in the Middle East: "Arab Spring can turn into radical Islamist Winter"

[Verbose]

There exists such a thing as anti-semitic 'anti-Zionism'. But criticising Israel for what it actually does is not bigoted. When I criticize the political failings on Russian society, I am not required to criticize the USA also for my arguments to be valid.

Sounds about right.

Lots of people are very vehement about their support of one side or the other in this conflict. I have the distinct impression it leads to situations where in order to have a discussion, there are implicit demands on the (perceived) supporters of the other party to make a special kind of rhetorical display - in classical rhetoric this is a requirement to display "sincerio". I.e. that in order to accept the other side as an interlocutor, as someone who has enough moral authority to have an opinion worth listening to at all, they have to make certain sets of initial statements, to establish that they are at all acceptable parties to have a discussion with.

It doesn't necessarily lead to better debates. It's just a sign of how loaded with significance the situation apparently is to a lot of people.

 

[NovaKart]

I'm not chatting with rightist media.

 

[Winner]

I'd make it a requirement in every discussion about this conflict to declare in advance whose side you're on. The main defining characteristics of this conflict is that NOBODY is neutral. It's really unique in this respect; few other conflicts are this controversial even in countries which are not directly involved. I mean, I believe you can be neutral with respect to the conflict between two tribes somewhere in Africa (I am), but whenever Israel is involved, everyone takes sides.

I am very annoyed by people who can't admit they're not neutral, who pretend to be objective, but then spout propaganda for one side and claim it to be the result of their "objective" analysis. My Gods, people, at least have the decency to admit you're biased.

 

[asbestos]

My biggest gripe is that anything short of complete pacifism on the part of the Palestinians is treated as an excuse to dismiss their entire cause. I think it's audacious to suggest that Palestinians need to apologize for anything.

In similar debates about ethnic cleansing or occupation, nobody in the mainstream would dare to suggest that the Native American cause is bankrupt for their raids on white settlements; or, likewise, that of the French for killing Germans (and French collaborators), or that of the Darfuris for fighting against the Sudanese government.

Israel is the one that exacerbates the current conditions, and it's the one that explicitly or implicitly acts against the creation of a viable Palestinian state by flouting international laws.

 

[kochman]

My biggest gripe is that anything short of complete pacifism on the part of the Palestinians is treated as an excuse to dismiss their entire cause. I think it's audacious to suggest that Palestinians need to apologize for anything.

In similar debates about ethnic cleansing or occupation, nobody in the mainstream would dare to suggest that the Native American cause is bankrupt for their raids on white settlements; or, likewise, that of the French for killing Germans (and French collaborators), or that of the Darfuris for fighting against the Sudanese government.

Israel is the one that exacerbates the current conditions, and it's the one that explicitly or implicitly acts against the creation of a viable Palestinian state by flouting international laws.

To say either side is entirely blameless is basically completely irresponsible.

 

[Winner]

The irony here is that if the Palestinians chose non-violent means of protest (civil disobedience, peaceful rallies, hunger strikes, petitions, appeals abroad, etc.), they would have won their independence already. Nobody would be able to brand them as terrorists then and if Israel chose a heavy-handed repression (as its detractors say), public pressure on Western governments would quickly make most countries distance themselves from Israel and thus force it to seek peace. Heck, it would probably put enough moral pressure on the Israeli government to do it.

Terrorism won't win the Pallies anything, it's totally counter-productive to their cause.

 

[Traitorfish]

The irony here is that if the Palestinians chose non-violent means of protest (civil disobedience, peaceful rallies, hunger strikes, petitions, appeals abroad, etc.), they would have won their independence already.

That's quite a claim. I'm not the most well-informed on the history of the Palestinian liberation movement, so would you be able to point me towards any sources making this argument?

 

[asbestos]

To say either side is entirely blameless is basically completely irresponsible.

How's that?

I don't believe that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very different from other colonial occupations. I do, however, blame the PA for being a bunch of corrupt, incompetent, push-overs (not counting their latest UN initiative). And I blame groups like Hamas for not understanding how others can use their violent rhetoric to discredit them; other than that, they have the same right to commit violence as anyone else in similar circumstances.

 

[Winner]

That's quite a claim. I'm not the most well-informed on the history of the Palestinian liberation movement, so would you be able to point me towards any sources making this argument?

What sources would you like - a wormhole into a parallel universe? An alternate history novel?

It's my opinion based on my analysis and knowledge of how this conflict started and escalated throughout the decades.

 

[luiz]

My biggest gripe is that anything short of complete pacifism on the part of the Palestinians is treated as an excuse to dismiss their entire cause. I think it's audacious to suggest that Palestinians need to apologize for anything.

In similar debates about ethnic cleansing or occupation, nobody in the mainstream would dare to suggest that the Native American cause is bankrupt for their raids on white settlements; or, likewise, that of the French for killing Germans (and French collaborators), or that of the Darfuris for fighting against the Sudanese government.

Israel is the one that exacerbates the current conditions, and it's the one that explicitly or implicitly acts against the creation of a viable Palestinian state by flouting international laws.

Nobody is "ethnically cleansing" the Palestinians. Their population is growing every year. It's not at all comparable with the situation of indians in the Americas or Jews in WW2.

The main reason the Palestinians don't have a state is Arafat not accepting Ehud Barak's reasonable offer, which involved huge concessions from Israel. Arafat, much like Hamas, knew that his whole existence only makes sense in a context where Palestinians are stateless, and that's why they'll never accept the compromises necessary for statehood, in effect ensuring a state of continuous conflict in which they thrive.

 

[Winner]

Nobody is "ethnically cleansing" the Palestinians. Their population is growing every year. It's not at all comparable with the situation of indians in the Americas or Jews in WW2.

The main reason the Palestinians don't have a state is Arafat not accepting Ehud Barak's reasonable offer, which involved huge concessions from Israel. Arafat, much like Hamas, knew that his whole existence only makes sense in a context where Palestinians are stateless, and that's why they'll never accept the compromises necessary for statehood, in effect ensuring a state of continuous conflict in which they thrive.

Until one day the situation finally explodes and then bad things (bad things) will happen to the "Palestinian people".

 

[Traitorfish]

What sources would you like - a wormhole into a parallel universe? An alternate history novel?

It's my opinion based on my analysis and knowledge of how this conflict started and escalated throughout the decades.

I didn't ask for proof, just a more substantial argument to that effect, which I wouldn't say is exactly unfeasible. It was an expression of sceptical interest, not a "[citation needed]".

 

[Ajidica]

Terrorism won't win the Pallies anything, it's totally counter-productive to their cause.

Which is why, surprise surprise, the PA/PLO has renounced terrorism. They are the group petitioning the UN for observing member state status. Hamas, Hizbullah, or Islamic Jihad aren't petitioning for observing member state status for obvious reasons.

 

[Winner]

Which is why, surprise surprise, the PA/PLO has renounced terrorism. They are the group petitioning the UN for observing member state status. Hamas, Hizbullah, or Islamic Jihad aren't petitioning for observing member state status for obvious reasons.

Renouncing violence while washing one's hand over actions of splinter groups is pure hypocrisy.

In my post I meant Palestinians as a whole, as a society - if instead of the path of radicalism and terrorism they had chosen non-violent opposition to the occupation, I believe they would have won their state by now.

 

[kochman]

WHich is why the West Bank is doing so much better... because they stopped being constantly violent... And, suprise surprise, Israel is not attacking them either!

 

[Ajidica]

Renouncing violence while washing one's hand over actions of splinter groups is pure hypocrisy.

By that logic I am commiting pure hypocrisy by pointing out that I am not responsible for the actions of the KKK.
The PA is not Hamas, simple as that.

In my post I meant Palestinians as a whole, as a society - if instead of the path of radicalism and terrorism they had chosen non-violent opposition to the occupation, I believe they would have won their state by now.

Careful, you are treading dangerously close to racism, making a universal negative generalization about an entire group of people.

WHich is why the West Bank is doing so much better... because they stopped being constantly violent... And, suprise surprise, Israel is not attacking them either!

Yes, that is why they are seeking oberving member state status and Hamas isn't.

 

[Winner]

By that logic I am commiting pure hypocrisy by pointing out that I am not responsible for the actions of the KKK.
The PA is not Hamas, simple as that.

If you want to use that analogy: it's like if the US government declared "all right, blacks have the same rights as whites", and then did nothing to make sure this is enforced in practice. So, KKK would still murder blacks, individual white Americans would go unpunished for crimes against blacks, and so on and so forth. But the US government would wash its hands over it and pretend that it had done its part and what happens next isn't its problem. If that was the case, everyone would see it as a bunch of hypocrites.

The PA/PLO claims to represent the whole Palestinian nation, ergo it must take responsibility for actions of the whole nation. It can't just have it both ways - renounce terrorism, but then let the terrorists do their business and even criticize Israel for fighting them.

(Now, I recognize the PA has done some progress in suppressing terrorism in recent years, but its job is far from complete. What I'd like to see for example is a deal between PA and Israel to jointly destroy Hamás. Israel would spearhead the attack, and then let the PA paramilitary forces to mop up and establish its rule in the Gaza Strip.)

Careful, you are treading dangerously close to racism, making a universal negative generalization about an entire group of people.

Since when are Palestinians a race and when have I suggested their behaviour as a group is biologically determined? I kindly suggest you take your r-word slur and stuff it.

 

[asbestos]

Nobody is "ethnically cleansing" the Palestinians. Their population is growing every year. It's not at all comparable with the situation of indians in the Americas or Jews in WW2.

I think you don't understand what "ethnic cleansing" means. It's when an ethnic group is forcibly removed from its land, usually to make way for another ethnic group to come in and settle. The settlement activity, and the Israeli annexation of the settlement blocks qualify as that.

It doesn't have to involve genocide, though that maybe a component of it. With or without genocide, it's both immoral and a crime as defined by international law.

The main reason the Palestinians don't have a state is Arafat not accepting Ehud Barak's reasonable offer, which involved huge concessions from Israel. Arafat, much like Hamas, knew that his whole existence only makes sense in a context where Palestinians are stateless, and that's why they'll never accept the compromises necessary for statehood, in effect ensuring a state of continuous conflict in which they thrive.

Israel made zero concessions. There were four principle issues in 2000:

-Removal of settlements.
-Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
-Jerusalem.
-The right to return for Palestinian refugees.

On each of these issues, international law is perfectly unambiguous:

-ALL settlement activity on occupied territory is illegal.
-Israel must give up all the occupied territories and return to the '67 borders.
-ALL of Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.
-ALL Palestinian refugees have a right to, literally, return to their former homes or within the vicinity.

Now, on each of these issues it was the Palestinians that compromised:

-Israel was allowed to keep half its settlements.
-Palestinians were willing to give up a small percent of their territory.
-Palestinians agreed to divide Jerusalem into a Palestinian and an Israeli side.
-Palestinians only asked for the return of refugees in the 100s of thousands (different authors suggest anywhere between 10s of thousands to 800,000), but not the full six million for which they were entitled to ask.

That's on top of the de facto concession of 78% of Palestine they made in 1948.

It's true that from a pro-Israeli perspective, Israel made tremendous concessions during the talks. But from the perspective of international law, Israel made concessions on things they had no right to claim in the first place. That's like a store doubling its prices before selling everything on sale for half-price.

There was a second summit at Taba where the sides almost reached an agreement on the above issues, but needed a few more weeks to finalize it. Taba held the best promise yet of ending the conflict. The reason the negotiations were stopped is largely because an Israeli election was held, forcing the government team to return to Israel; the subsequent hard-line right-wing Likud government wasn't interested in renewing talks.

 

[luiz]

I think you don't understand what "ethnic cleansing" means. It's when an ethnic group is forcibly removed from its land, usually to make way for another ethnic group to come in and settle. The settlement activity, and the Israeli annexation of the settlement blocks qualify as that.

It doesn't have to involve genocide, though that maybe a component of it. With or without genocide, it's both immoral and a crime as defined by international law.

No, I think you don't understand the concept of ethnic cleasing. Not all relocations are "ethnic cleansing", that's an absurd notion.

And by and large, the relocations are over. Israel is not evicting Palestinians in large scale now.

Israel made zero concessions. There were four principle issues in 2000:

The removal of virtually all settlements?
The cession of 94% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza Strip?
Autonomy in East Jerusalem?
Cession of a highway (to be built by Israel) connecting Gaza and West Bank?

All of that is "zero"? I take it that the only concession you'd accept would be all jews agreeing to be sunk in the Mediterranean, like Hamas wants.

-Removal of settlements.
-Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.
-Jerusalem.
-The right to return for Palestinian refugees.

On each of these issues, international law is perfectly unambiguous:

-ALL settlement activity on occupied territory is illegal.
-Israel must give up all the occupied territories and return to the '67 borders.
-ALL of Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.
-ALL Palestinian refugees have a right to, literally, return to their former homes or within the vicinity.

Complete and utter BS. There is no "international law" mandating Israel to return to the 67 borders, nor granting all palestinians the "right of return".

Return in particular will never happen.

Now, on each of these issues it was the Palestinians that compromised:

-Israel was allowed to keep half its settlements.
-Palestinians were willing to give up a small percent of their territory.
-Palestinians agreed to divide Jerusalem into a Palestinian and an Israeli side.
-Palestinians only asked for the return of refugees in the 100s of thousands (different authors suggest anywhere between 10s of thousands to 800,000), but not the full six million for which they were entitled to ask.

That's on top of the de facto concession of 78% of Palestine they made in 1948.

It's true that from a pro-Israeli perspective, Israel made tremendous concessions during the talks. But from the perspective of international law, Israel made concessions on things they had no right to claim in the first place. That's like a store doubling its prices before selling everything on sale for half-price.

There was a second summit at Taba where the sides almost reached an agreement on the above issues, but needed a few more weeks to finalize it. Taba held the best promise yet of ending the conflict. The reason the negotiations were stopped is largely because an Israeli election was held, forcing the government team to return to Israel; the subsequent hard-line right-wing Likud government wasn't interested in renewing talks.

There is a reason why Bill Clinton and pretty much every analyst personally blame Arafat for the failure of the negotiations.

Barak offered a viable Palestinian state. He offered to remove tens of thousands of colonists and build infra-structure to help Palestine. The Palestinians were offered autonomy over East Jerusalem, which Israel considers indivisible.

The Palestinians and their Arab allies were repeatedly defeated in wars against Israel, who they refused to accept. As a defeated people, they don't get have things exactly their way. Israel made concessions and so must them. They were offered tremendously generous terms, unparalleled in the history of defeated peoples.

11 years after the Camp David Summit, do you think they would be better or worse if they had taken the deal? Only a complete idiot would deny that they would be much better.

Arafat (an Egyptian...) brought only pain and suffering to his people when he insisted on the one thing Israel cannot negotiate: the total right of return of all palestinians to Israeli territory. That would mean the death of the Israeli nation and everybody knows that. So by insisting on it they are actually denying any possibility of getting their state.

This is the fact. They were defeated in several wars and offered a viable state, economic aid and peace. They (or rather their leaders) chose to remain stateless and keep fighting. 11 years later, are they any better?

 

[kochman]

@ asbestos... Luiz is correct.

Under Ehud Barak, Israel was willing to give up almost ALL settlements, including the entire Gaza Strip, and split Jerusalem...
So, I am not sure why you are acting as if they were so unwilling to compromise.