So What’s Next For Palestine?

39 Responses to “So What’s Next For Palestine?”

1. Finnpundit on June 23rd, 2007 7:29 pm

   Good post, Drima.

   Meanwhile, most Arabs and Muslims passionately blame Israel and America for their “divide and control” games.

   It’s sometimes amusing to see commentators refer to these policies in conspiratorial terms, since such policies are so openly discussed.

   The “control” aspect, though, is rather dubious, as Fatah in the end will not be controlled. But there’s nothing wrong with giving incentives for some party in the hope that such incentives will modify behavior. In that sense, Israel and America have been some of the most patiently generous nations in the world.

2. Craig on June 23rd, 2007 7:43 pm

   Hi Drima,

   They’re victims of their own leaders, corrupted Fatah on one hand, and on the other, Iranian-backed Hamas, who were democractically elected out of desperation and unfortunately ended up practicing a policy based on confrontation rather than cooperation.

   They are also victims of their own advocates in the western media, and their own activist bloggers. I read Palestinian blogs (and news articles by Palestinians) and I see nothing but hate.

   Also, I’m not so sure there are any large number of “innocent” Palestinians for me to feel sympathy for. I’ve never seen much evidence of that. If there’s a silent majority of Palestinians who don’t support violence against the US and Israel, they are pretty fucking silent, man!

   And if the majority of Palestinians do support violence against my country (US) - then certainly I have a right to support violence against them, in self defense. Right?

   I’m sorry to sound harsh… I do make distinctions between the different factions in Iraq. I do that, because I see distinctions between the different groups in Iraq. And I see the fundamental “good” nature of many Iraqi bloggers.

   I don’t see any of that, with Palestinians. It seems like a monolithic bloc of absolute (violent) hatred, to me.

3. Suzanne on June 23rd, 2007 8:45 pm

   Craig, I met once a sane girl from the West Bank. She should be grown up by now and perhaps get into politics some day

   Ow. And I met one Palestinians in Israel who said to me he was glad living in Israel.

   Heh.

4. Andrew Brehm on June 23rd, 2007 9:06 pm

   “who were democractically elected out of desperation and unfortunately ended up practicing a policy based on confrontation rather than cooperation.”

   I call BS.

   Hamas openly advocated confrontation and THAT is why they were elected. If the Arabs in Palestine wanted to elect somebody out of desperation, they could have surrendered and ask Israel to remove PLO rule.

   Again, I have no sympathy for those people. They were given the opportunity to vote and they voted for a party that wanted war. The only “negative” outcome was that the war wasn’t against Jews (because they refused to fight) but against their own population.

   The Palestinian Arabs brought upon themselves what they wanted to bring upon the Jews. And they deserve it. If it’s good for the Jews, it’s good for the Arabs.

   Now let them try out something else. We have the West Bank. Let them vote and we’ll see if they changed their mind. But I hear that Hamas are quite popular in the West Bank too. And as long as they are, the theory that they made a tragic mistake doesn’t bode well. They WANTED Hamas and they got Hamas. They WANTED Hamas to do this to someone. It should have been Israel, but Israel was too strong.

   There are more desperate people who do not get as much aid as the Palestinian Arabs who do not vote for genocide when given the opportunity. Stop blaming desperation. These people were not desperate. They got (and still get) more aid than any other “oppressed” people and in contrast to many African peoples do not suffer from hunger and AIDS. They were NOT desperate.

   They simply decided to invest the money they got into killing Jews and it backfired.

   At some point even you will have to blame those who made the decisions.

   They wanted war, they got war. Israel didn’t even have to be involved.

   For the first time ever a voting population voted for war and was then the only group really affected by it. Priceless.

   They can have as many wars as they like if they do it like that, for all I care.

5. Andrew Brehm on June 23rd, 2007 9:14 pm

   “innocent Palestinians”

   The innocent “Palestinians” are those who voted neither for Fatah nor Hamas (or any of the similarly criminal gangs). What percentage was that?

   Did you know that Hitler’s party only ever got 44% of the popular vote? And that was in 1933 when Hitler was already chancellor (prime minister).

   The innocent Germans, in my opinion, were those who voted against the Nazis, AT LEAST. 56% of Germans said that they are opposed to a party that promotes genocide and war and voted for other parties.

   How many Arab Palestinians voted for parties opposed to genocide and war?

   They are your innocents.

   I have as much sympathy for the majority of Palestinian Arabs as I have for those Germans who willingly voted for the NSDAP.

   And for the same reason.

6. Andrew Brehm on June 23rd, 2007 9:26 pm

   “It seems like a monolithic bloc of absolute (violent) hatred, to me.”

   It pretty much is.

   “Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.” — Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a proposed draft for Hitler to sign

   “Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you.” — same person, on Radio Berlin in 1944

   “We are not Afghanistan. We are the mighty people. Were they able to replace our hero Hajj Amin al-Husseini?… There were a number of attempts to get rid of Hajj Amin, whom they considered an ally of the Nazis. But even so, he lived in Cairo, and participated in the 1948 war, and I was one of his troops.” — Yassir “Arafat” in 2002

   (Sources see Wikipedia article on the Grand Mufti)

   I suppose the Grand Mufti’s hatred of Jews and his followers’ is a result of Israel’s oppression of the “Palestinian people”. But he could also have been a damn godless Nazi.

   These are the PLO’s roots.

   It was that party and the even more genocidal Hamas (the PLO softened since then) that the Arabs in Palestine voted for.

   It’s funny how an American voter is considered “guilty” for what happens in Iraq (even though the killing is being done by America’s enemies) while “Palestinian” voters are considered innocent, even though they voted for the very people who do the killing.

7. europia on June 23rd, 2007 10:37 pm

   Andrew,

   do you have a source for your presumption?

   “Hamas openly advocated confrontation and THAT is why they were elected. If the Arabs in Palestine wanted to elect somebody out of desperation, they could have surrendered and ask Israel to remove PLO rule.”

   IMO Hamas was elected because of the overwhelming corruption in Fatah, not because the confrontation. Though, I forgot where I read it; but it’s not very persuasive to say you know the reason for the election’s result.

   Then, in their (the Arab’s) opinion, if they voted for violence, they see it as an act of resistance, not as a genocide. The problem is that you can switch those therms, according to what side you are on. It won’t bring anyone any further.

   “For the first time ever a voting population voted for war and was then the only group really affected by it. Priceless.”

   Strange statement, see above. What if the election’s result is based on domestic affairs?
   Would you say that Israel’s voting population is for violence because of its support of the illegal settelments by past elections results? IMO you are making it too easy by generalizing, maybe I am too tired for realizing sarcasm here

   “I have as much sympathy for the majority of Palestinian Arabs as I have for those Germans who willingly voted for the NSDAP.”

   That’s easy- Hey, you grew up on the sunny side of earth, enjoying all possible wealth of a Western society. What do you know of the motivation of those people? Do you think they had made their decision knowing what would be coming? I do not believe that. I think most of those people were just like you and me, refusing to see certain things and hoping for the best to come.

8. Andrew Brehm on June 23rd, 2007 11:43 pm

   “do you have a source for your presumption?”

   Yes, the election results.

   “IMO Hamas was elected because of the overwhelming corruption in Fatah, not because the confrontation. Though, I forgot where I read it; but it’s not very persuasive to say you know the reason for the election’s result.”

   I don’t believe that Hamas was the only party that ran apart from Fatah. They were elected for everything they stood. I have no doubt that there are completely decent Palestinian Arabs who the people could have voted for instead. But the voters decided to vote for Hamas instead, knowing what else they stood for.

   “Then, in their (the Arabs’) opinion, if they voted for violence, they see it as an act of resistance, not as a genocide.”

   Yes, the Germans saw it as such as well. But I really don’t care what they call it. Tryig to destroy a country and kill its people is attempted genocide. “Resistance” is just the politically correct term for doing that to Jews. In German the motto was “Deutsche, wehrt euch!” (”Germans, defend yourself!”). In Germany and Poland the “resistance” was very succesfull, unfortunately. It was so successfull that Germany lost most of its power and influence in the world. A stupid course to pursue. Yet the Palestinian Arabs kept following Hitler’s Bosnian SS leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

   “Would you say that Israel’s voting population is for violence because of its support of the illegal settelments by past elections results?”

   No. Illegal settlements are not the same as trying to destroy Palestine and throw its population into the sea. Also, the Israelis voted for Sharon and Sharon started dismantling those. Perhaps it should have been done faster, but Isarelis definitely voted AGAINST those settlements. Either way, if Israelis did vote for parties that support the settlements, I would say that Israelis voted for the settlements, yes. Just like I say that Palestinian Arabs voted for violence when they vote for parties that support violence.

   Although why exactly Jews settling in Gaza or the West Bank is such a huge crime, I will never understand. After all, Jews lived in Hebron before the Arabs threw them out in 1948 too. And there are Arab settlements in the Jewish part of Palestine. (Of course they don’t have to be treated like high-security bases because nobody is trying to destroy them, thank G-d.)

   “Hey, you grew up on the sunny side of earth, enjoying all possible wealth of a Western society. What do you know of the motivation of those people?”

   The reason I grew up on the sunny side of earth is because my parents’ parents’ generation did NOT vote for war after they lost, accepted the loss of territory, accepted an occupation, and apologised to those they tried to murder (and for those they did murder). I myself grew up in territory that was still occupied.

   I can tell you that if Israelis ever voted for a Jewish party that claims all of western Palestine as Israel and openly advocated genocide of the non-Jews living there I would have no sympathy for those Jews who voted for them either. And if that party that started to kill Jews instead, I would not be surprised, and I would still feel no sympathy for those who voted for them.

   I grew up on the sunny side all right. But so did the Palestinian Arabs. When my parents had to deal with living in a country that was totally destroyed by a war, the Palestinian Arabs only had to deal with massive Jewish immigration (half of it caused by Arab countries expelling their Jews and where else should they have gone?). And massive Jewish immigration has never ever done harm to any country and I refuse to see massive Jewish immigration as a “crime” or anything worth to fight a war over.

   The Palestinian Arabs definitely grew up on a sunnier side than my parents.

   It’s time for them to learn that you make your own sun light.

   (Alternatively, you can use American sun light, like Germany did with the Marshall plan. But that requires strict observance of the “stop trying to murder other people” rule. The Germans managed to do that.)

9. europia on June 24th, 2007 12:48 am

   Actually. I asked for a source concerning the conlict with Israel as the reason for the election’s result.
   Sure other parties competed, but they seemed not to be mainstream enough. And I believe that both of us don’t have enough knowledge of domestic Palestinian affairs. IMO Hamas won as they seemed to be the only realistic alternative to the corrupt Fatah and that a good part of the voters hoped for some pragmatism by Hamas as it came to power.

   Concerning the difference between genocide and resistance, I totally agree to you, this might result from our common origin. However, isn’t it legitimate to call fighting against a super strong enemy (Israel & US) occupying some of your believed territory resistance? I mean the problem is not how WE call it, the problem is how THEY see & feel it.
   Resitance and “war on terror” are the euphemism for the “good” side of a conflict, respectively your own. No objection to this, as I do equally, but consider that most Palestinians don’t share your POV.

   “No. Illegal settlements are not the same as trying to destroy Palestine and throw its population into the sea.”
   This if for sure, but keep in mind that the settlements are a fact, and the “pushing” is “only” propaganda. You cannot count the rockets fired by Hamas as an attempted genocide (untauglicher Versuch). So imagine what has more influence on the affected: permanent occupation or propaganda combined with frequent but mosty non-lethal attacks? My aim is not to condemn one side, neither Israelis nor Palestinians. I am just trying to show you that it’S simple to value things when you see them through your own culture’s filters, but nearly impossible to see through another one.

   “Although why exactly Jews settling in Gaza or the West Bank is such a huge crime, I will never understand.”
   Nor will I. But I understand a population’s frustration when living in “special” conditions for quite some time. What was the legal status of Palestinians in Gaza again?

   “…I refuse to see massive Jewish immigration as a “crime” or anything worth to fight a war over.”
   So do I, but wars have been fought for much less, over and over again…

   “The Palestinian Arabs definitely grew up on a sunnier side than my parents.”
   Which ones? The rich Fatah/Hamas guys? Or the tortured communits? Or gays? I think there are many sides in any Arab societies we don’t even want to know. And I was talking about you We all can find relatives with tough experiences.

   “It’s time for them to learn that you make your own sun light.”
   Full ack. Nothing to add to this

10. Andrew Brehm on June 24th, 2007 1:34 am

    “And I was talking about you.”

    Ok. I grew up in territory occupied by a foreign power that won a war against my country. I do not hold citizenship of that foreign power, although they occupied my place of birth for 45 years.

    My legal status was the same as the Arabs’ in Gaza. My citizenship came from a country formed out of the area taken by the (former) “enemy”, but only because that country thought that I (and everybody living in the occupied territories) should have that citizenship. I believe Jordan and Egypt are free to grant citizenship to the inhabitants of the occupied territories.

    We were surrounded by a wall and a minefield and the only way out was via three specific highways (based on a treaty with another occupying power and another country) or via (American, French, or British) aircraft. Of course, in our case the wall wasn’t built to stop us from attacking the next country (although that was claimed) but to keep the inhabitants from that country to flee to our side of the wall.

    The difference between my status and the Palestinian Arabs’ was a direct result of the fact that my people did NOT fight the occupiers, did NOT try to murder Jews (or anybody else) any more, and ACCEPTED the occupation and the fact that the war was lost. That was the difference. We made that difference ourselves.

    When I was a child I participated in a sport club set up by the occupiers for local children. I also learned the language of the occupiers. My father still has post cards from those old days and occasionally sends me one showing military street signs and the wall to remind me of the old days. I have very fond memories of those days. And I have absolutely no doubt that if we had attacked the occupiers, they would have retaliated and my memories would be quite different. But we didn’t and they never had to.

    “and the “pushing” is “only” propaganda”

    No, it isn’t. Whenever the Arabs had a chance to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, they tried. the huge Arab armies of the past were _not_ “only propaganda”. They were a real attempt to kill all the Jews.

    And look at what happened to the Kurds, who couldn’t defend themselves against Arab nationalism as well as the Jews could. It’s not propaganda. It’s programme.

    “However, isn’t it legitimate to call fighting against a super strong enemy (Israel & US) occupying some of your believed territory resistance?”

    They called it “resistance” long before teir territories were occupied and before Israel even existed. They called it “resistance” when THEY were the super strong enemy and Israel was a bunch of Jewish cities with little support in the world.

    Trying to murder Jews is NOT resistance, not even when you continue to try it after the Jews won the war.

    If they want to have a “resistance” they will have to give up all goals beyond ending the occupation. But they didn’t.

    “You cannot count the rockets fired by Hamas as an attempted genocide”

    The fact that these idiots are too weak to succeed doesn’t mean that they do not attempt what they claim to be able to achieve.

    Hitler’s plans were attempted genocide long before he had the power to act.

    Either way, I don’t have to know anything about “Palestinian” domestic politics to judge their voting behaviour. Trust me to vote for a party whose domestic politics I totally disagree with if the alternative includes “attack Poland” in its platform.

    Many Germans voted for social democrats and communists to avoid voting for Hitler or his supporters in the early 1930s. They did not all support socialism or communism, they merely thought that socialism in one’s own country is to be preferred over attacking Europe.

    And I’m not sure I understand domestic politics of the early 1930s Germany either, but I can still judge based on who votes for war and who doesn’t, regardless of what else they vote for.

    Yes, the Nazis seemed less corrupt and had a better economic platform than the German communists (who, after all, appeared to co-operate with a foreign power). But, frankly, sometimes, if you want to show that you are not a violent animal and ready for peace, you might just have to vote for a party that reflects that position, even if you disagree with absolutely everything they stand for.

11. Finnpundit on June 24th, 2007 2:33 am

    …illegal settlements…

    Actually, there’s nothing illegal about Israeli settlements in the West Bank at all. That was just a media invention after the notoriously corrupt UN General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution calling them that.

    However, the Israeli state does reserve the right to decide where and how Israelis can build those settlements; some settlements were found to be illegal by Israel itself, and the state has taken action against them.

    In any case, it might be useful to remember why Israel pursued a policy of West Bank and Gaza settlement in the first place. Throughout the conflict, Palestinians have clung to the idea of a “right of return” to Israel proper. As Israelis have been understandably concerned about underlying Palestinian intentions, it was thought that if Palestinians insisted on their right to live in what is now Israeli land, they should be able to reciprocate and permit Israelis to live in peace in their lands, amongst them. The settlements became a litmus test, of sorts.

    Of course, a lot of right-wing, religiously conservative Jews also saw the settlements as their God-given right, and most Muslims and western media concentrated on their statements when spotlighting the settlements. Yet the underlying logic behind the settlements is very sound: a simple quid pro quo. A fair trade-off.

    As it happened, the Palestinians were completely unaccommodating to the settlements, and made them targets of various kinds of violence over the years, so much so that the settlements are basically walled-off compounds and forts. If that kind of lack of self-control was inevitable, we can only surmise that Israel is justified for not agreeing on an eventual Palestinian “right of return”.

12. Nizo on June 24th, 2007 5:39 am

    Finnpundit said:

    “Yet the underlying logic behind the settlements is very sound: a simple quid pro quo. A fair trade-off.”

    The West Bank was conquered during a war. Whether the war was defensive or offensive depends on who you ask, and you’ll find both schools of thought even in Israel proper.

    There’s nothing fair or “simple” about the settlements, some of which were located on empty unclaimed tracts, others on confiscated lands. The fairness of any trade off would depend on the final border that Israel would one day negotiate with the PA and whether they would be willing to trade lands in Israel proper for blocks such as Maaleh Adumim.

    Your justification of Israel’s refusal of a right of return based on how the Palestinians received the settlements is beyond disingenuous.

    Using your argument, if the Palestinians were more accepting vis-a-vis the settlements, Israel would be open to right of return of the 1948 refugees?

    Up until the first Intifada, the Palestinians weren’t attacking the settlements in any significant fashion, in fact, they were employed in building them. Did we see an Israeli willingness to consider the Palestinian right of return?

    I think not.

13. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 5:46 am

    Hamas do not hide their national goals. Nor did they ever say they would compromise on them. The closest they went to that were vague hints to Western media after they won.

    If Hamas became mainstream, it’s not due to lack of support in the field. People choose who becomes mainstream and who does not, and acute self-delusion is not an excuse.

    As for Kassams, give Hamas more effective weapons and they would use them. Also, their lack of effectiveness is largely due to to Israeli early warning systems.

14. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 5:59 am

    To add to the above, Kassams are also of lessened effect because every house or apartment in Israel must be built with an armored room. Your very own bomb shelter.

    As for “resistance”, it was indeed called that even before 1967. “fadiyun” comes to mind, a very active part of Arabic discourse in the early days of Israel, at least among those Arab states that had a border with Israel.

    As for “pushing the Jews into the sea”, what exactly is supposed to happen to us should Hamas win?

15. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 6:12 am

    To add to the above, for Hamas we are outsiders and invaders on Muslim land. So where do we go, “back” to Europe? Perhaps all the way to Siberia?

    I don’t see anything in what Hamas intends that allows us to remain here alive, just as I never saw that intent in the “liberation” armies of Arab states. No, what I saw was discourse of “outsiders” that had to be “cleansed”. And I still see this discourse very often on Arab websites. Too often.

16. nominally challenged on June 24th, 2007 7:22 am

    The IDF will then move in and the party will begin.

    Not unless it’s drawn in, which I don’t think that Hamas has the power to do, and even then, I doubt it. Israel is in no rush to get involved in Gaza again, despite Hamas’ attempts to draw us into an all-out war by continually bombing areas on the Gaza border. The Qassam bombs have been raining down almost daily for 6 years or so, and we still haven’t gone into for an all-out offensive in Gaza. So why are we going to start now? If an Israeli military and civilian presence in Gaza was so important to us, we would not have disengaged.

17. nominally challenged on June 24th, 2007 7:26 am

    Oh, and by the way:

    It’s obvious the United States and Israel want to suffocate and isolate Hamas militarily, economically and diplomatically within the Gaza. At the same time, they want to support Abbas and the emergency government.

    Apparently, the same is true of both Egypt and Jordan, the other relevant neighbors in the equation.

18. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 7:58 am

    Note: “fadiyun” should have been “fedayeen”. That is all.

19. tsedek on June 24th, 2007 8:33 am

    [i]Hamas was elected because of the overwhelming corruption in Fatah, not because the confrontation. [/i]

    Hamas was elected out of frustration, out of desperation and out of having little other choice besides the Fatah.

    It has a clean bill of record concerning corruption until now and corruption and protectionism were the things the Palestinian people protested about first of all.

    It is a sin to think that ‘the’ Palestinians are not people that think about their families (and how to feed them) first, over their nationalistic esparations.

20. tsedek on June 24th, 2007 8:37 am

    Btw: Drima I’ve just made you my friend on “myblog” (or whatever it is called) - don’t stand me up by not accepting, hey!! Because if you do I will send the Mossad after you

    (remember: “Hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn”)

    :D

21. europia on June 24th, 2007 9:19 am

    Andrew, yet, there were still some differences between Germany’s and Palestine’s status. Depending on which side you lived, you were free to travel into your “empire’s” side. And I think there are huge differences between Germany before, during and after the war and Palestine.
    Germany had already reached a high degree of industrialization, had the typical European institutions (legal system aso.) and some more similarities to modern Western countries, which made it easier to set up a democracy there. On the other hand, Arabs suffer from the minority complex. After Turkish and British occupation, ISrael is founded and is a great success by building a wealthy state where Palestinians failed to do. Due to the Arab mentality, they sty in their victim’S role instead of criticising themselves. Living in these tough lands through centuries made the society conservative in social and cultural issues.

    “No, it isn’t. Whenever the Arabs had a chance to destroy Israel and kill the Jews, they tried. the huge Arab armies of the past were _not_ “only propaganda”. They were a real attempt to kill all the Jews.”
    Are you sure about that? war =! genocide.

    “They called it “resistance” long before teir territories were occupied and before Israel even existed. They called it “resistance” when THEY were the super strong enemy and Israel was a bunch of Jewish cities with little support in the world.

    Trying to murder Jews is NOT resistance, not even when you continue to try it after the Jews won the war.”
    You did not get my point. I mean that both sides in the conflict believe to be right. In some aspects though, both are wrong (IMO). And I do not appreciate the statement explaining me that trying to murder Jews is not resistance. I am not trying to justify anyone here. I try to explain that Palestine vs ISrael is not black & white or good vs evil…

    “But, frankly, sometimes, if you want to show that you are not a violent animal and ready for peace, you might just have to vote for a party that reflects that position, even if you disagree with absolutely everything they stand for.”
    Full ack again, but we are politically interested, we know (and want to know) what political parties stand for. Look around you. How many people do care? How many have an idea about their national goals?

22. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 9:27 am

    Tsedek, it is also a sin to forget that Hamas were a package deal, that the lack of corruption went hand in hand with the “great struggle”, and that nationalistic aspirations have as much an affect on the lives of the average citizen as corruption, if not more so.

    At best, the Palestinians were criminally negligent and self-delusional. And that’s at the very best. And I very much doubt that worse considerations did not play a part. Again, mainstream movements come from the public.

23. Roman Kalik on June 24th, 2007 11:34 am

    Are you sure about that? war =! genocide.

    Um, if I may add my part here. You might want to read up on the declared goals of the invading Arab armies in 48 and 67. Nasser openly stated (time and time again, I might add) that the goal of the war in 1967 was the destruction of Israel. In 48 the so-called Liberation Army stated (time and time again) that no Jewish state will rise. Hajj Amin il-Husayni went as far as to declare it a holy war to cleanse Palestine of the Jewish infidels.

    Perhaps to you the destruction of a state is not the same as the destruction of the people in it, but ask yourself the following… What would have happened had the Arab armies won?

    Full ack again, but we are politically interested, we know (and want to know) what political parties stand for. Look around you. How many people do care? How many have an idea about their national goals?

    Not many. That’s their own fault though, and not anyone else’s. Stupidity has consequences.

24. Andrew Brehm on June 24th, 2007 1:55 pm

    “Did we see an Israeli willingness to consider the Palestinian right of return?”

    Why should Israel show such a willingness? They are the descendants of people who conspired with the enemy to kill their (then) fellow countrymen. It’s not like allowing them to return would solve the basic problem.

    I am all for compensation for the refugees though.

    Either way, I’m afraid it is black and white. There are few things that are black and white, but a conflict in which one side works with Hitler and tries to kill all the Jews (or at least claim that they want that) while on the other side their enemies win and let the first side live, _IS_ black and white.

    There are legitimate issues there on both sides, but the conflict is not about these issues.

    If the return of the refugees is an issue, why was there a war before the refugees became refugees?

    If the occupation is an issue, why was there a war before the occupation had started?

    If the founding of Israel is an issue, why were Jewish settlements being attacked before Israel was founded?

    I have seen no Arab demand that was not already fulfilled in the past; yet they always wanted more war.

    “Right of return” would bring us back to 1948, when the Arabs tried to destroy Israel and throw the Jews into the sea.

    “End of occupation” would bring us back to 1966, when the Arabs amassed armies at the borders and Arab radio stations were celebrating the foreseen death of all the Jews.

    Here’s what would make the Palestinian Arabs innocent again:

    1. Stop using “Palestinian” as a term for non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. A “Palestinian” is traditionally ANYBODY who lives in Palestine, it is not a racially exclusive term and shouldn’t be.

    2. Get rid of Hamas and the PLO and denounce their links to Iran and Nazi Germany respectively.

    3. Accept that the borders have changed because your side kept attacking Israel.

    I expect nothing more of the Arabs that the world expected of Germany.

25. Finnpundit on June 24th, 2007 4:08 pm

    Nizo:

    Your justification of Israel’s refusal of a right of return based on how the Palestinians received the settlements is beyond disingenuous.

    Using your argument, if the Palestinians were more accepting vis-a-vis the settlements, Israel would be open to right of return of the 1948 refugees?

    Up until the first Intifada, the Palestinians weren’t attacking the settlements in any significant fashion, in fact, they were employed in building them. Did we see an Israeli willingness to consider the Palestinian right of return?

    I think not.

    Israel would have formally annexed the West Bank and expulsed the Palestinians long ago, right after the ‘67 war, if it wanted to. The realization that they were surrounded by hostile Arab nations tempered their thinking, and forced them to weigh policies in terms of long-term effect.

    There has always been hope on the Israeli side that Jews and Arabs could live and work together side by side. This is not just simple idealism; it is rather a calculated realization that it is the only way to guarantee Israeli security in the future. To that end, the settlements represented a test case. As you’ve pointed out yourself, Palestinians were even employed by Israelis in the endeavor, in an attempt to co-opt them into the project.

    You’re quite right that there were very few attacks on the settlements prior to the first Intifada. Yet Palestine was still formally (by UN decree, even) represented by a very hostile PLO, which still insisted on the right of return as a condition for a final peace settlement. The open aggression of the PLO (Israel always made a point of never negotiating under the threat of terrorism) precluded any Israel willingness to consider the right of return issue. Yet the settlements were seen as a form of insurance - a bargaining chip - if and when the right of return question would resurface in the future.

    Of course, it did, in the peace initiative of 2000. However, by then the PA leadership had clearly demonstrated, through a decade of political doubletalk, that it was not interested in any kind of final rapprochement with an independent Jewish state. Thus the settlements have faded in importance as bargaining chips, though their utility as such might emerge again.

    Palestinians could make it easier for themselves and adopt a demonstrably positive view to the settlements, which could lead to Israel reconsidering the right of return. The able Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi pointed the way, but sadly she was sidelined when the macho terrorists of the PLO rode into town after Oslo, and rewrote Palestinian politics completely.

26. Nizo on June 24th, 2007 4:11 pm

    Andrew,
    Are you for real? I’m a regular audient of the extreme-right Arutz 7 and even the people there have gone beyond the archaic points you use as arguments.

    Comparing Arabs to Nazi Germany is simplistic and (sorry to use the same word again) disingenuous. The historical circumstances between the events that led to 1948 and WWII are different. The context is different, the parties are different etc..

    If you were to ask these same questions in Israel, you would get a whole spectrum of views, and I guarantee you that most conclusions and “demands” will be more nuanced than what you’ve managed to come up with.

    Besides, if you cannot use more modern arguments than those that mention Hitler and Nazism, then I’m afraid that you’re seriously behind the times. A lot has happened since Haj Amin Al Husseini met with Hitler, and I suggest that if you’re going to be up to date with your arguments, Islamic fundamentalism is the saveur du jour, rather than Nazism.

    There are points you make that I am actually in agreement with, I would love to see the Palestinian movement follow a non-violent path and reconcile with Israel. Other points you make drip with arrogance and misinformation, and the one about who should be called a Palestinian is plain silly. If Hamas were to declare that all future inhabitants of their wet-dream Islamic Caliphate of Palestine (Israel+Gaza+WB) are to be known as “Palestinians” regardless or race or religion, would that indicate a willingness for peace? According to your point #1, it would.

    You know, with every passing day, I’m tempted to limit such political discussions to Israelis on the ground, at least they’re in touch with reality and some have even interacted with Palestinians enough to know that not all of us are born with fangs and horns.

27. Nizo on June 24th, 2007 4:30 pm

    Finnpundit,

    “Israel would have formally annexed the West Bank and expulsed the Palestinians long ago, right after the ‘67 war, if it wanted to. ”

    Some in Israel wanted to, others didn’t. At that point, they went as far as they did with the available consensus.

    “Palestinians could make it easier for themselves and adopt a demonstrably positive view to the settlements, which could lead to Israel reconsidering the right of return. ”

    Those who spearhead(ed) the settlement movement are not necessarily representative of the rest of Israeli society, many espouse views that negate the Palestinians right to exist as a people. Asking the Palestinians not to use violence as a tool against the settlements is one thing (and I’m with you on that point), but asking them to adopt a “positive” view goes beyond what’s humanly possible. How could one adopt a positive view about a competing nationalism that in some cases denies one’s presence, rights and even identity?

    Finnpundit, I’m convinced that those who settle the West Bank today do so for many reasons including the religious, political and economic. I sincerely doubt anyone is thinking of the Palestinian right of return when they set up a trailer on a West Bank hilltop. I would even dare to say that Palestinian West Bankers themselves are concerned with more pressing needs than the right of return.

    That said, I agree with the essence of what you are trying to say, that belligerence and stupidity have cost the Palestinians dearly.

28. Andrew Brehm on June 24th, 2007 4:38 pm

    Nizo,

    The points might be archaic, but I fear they have never been settled. This conflict is not going to end unless people realise what started it.

    I didn’t compare _Arabs_ to Nazi Germany, I compared the PLO and Hamas to Nazi Germany. I compared _Arabs_ with _Germans_, i.e. with me. This might be simplistic, but I see no problem with it otherwise.

    As for modern arguments, I suppose you see a change that I didn’t see. I am not behind times, the Palestinian Arabs are. They are fighting a war that should have been over over 60 years ago. If that is not “behind times” then I don’t know what is.

    A lot has happened since Husseine met with Hitler? What has? What has happaned that changed things? Did the PLO confront their past and renounce it? They did not, or did they? Why don’t they? If a comparison with Nazism is no longer accurate, why don’t the PLO make that point, publicly?

    Also, note that I did not compare Hamas’ ideology with Nazism but the moral situation of their supporters. I am afraid Germany didn’t have a recent example of another evil ideology that the majority of Germans followed. It was about whether people voting for war are responsible for war, even if they voted for the party because of the rest of their platform. My position was and is that YES, they are responsible, and I used the Germans vote for the NSDAP as an example.

    As for the arrogance, you are right. I intended to make it sound arrogant. I am sick and tired of seeing Israel being blamed for the violence of other people. And my point about the definition of “Palestinian” was about the way the Nazis redefined “German” to exclude Jews (and Gipsies etc.).

    Your disagreeing with me doesn’t mean that I am not in touch with reality. And your accusation that I somehow believed something about fangs and horns is simply ridiculous. But I still believe that if the majority of them vote for Fatah or Hamas, the majority of them do not want peace and are not better than those Germans who voted for the NSDAP.

    I don’t think there will be peace until the Arab side realises that voting for war will not bring them closer to peace.

    And yes, I think remembering that there is no substantial difference between Arabs and Jews in Palestine as such would be a good start. The division between “Israelis” and “Palestinian” is artificial and you know that. It’s a division that doesn’t help the people who actually live in the region.

29. Nizo on June 24th, 2007 5:06 pm

    Andrew,
    I’m also sick of Israel being blamed for everything from the occupation to the common cold and even herpes, but that doesn’t mean Israel and its army are as pure as the driven snow either. You seem to be putting 100% of the blame on the other side. If it’s merely an emotional reaction, that’s fine, but as I alluded to earlier, even the right wingers I know (and I know many) do concede that some Israeli policies are also to blame for the quagmire we’re in today.

    I still disagree with all the examples using Nazi germany as a reference point. Again, the context is different, the cultures are different, the time-line is different, the region is different etc… etc…

    Besides, advocates of a binational state (Most Palestinians and all 7 Meretz-voting israelis) use the same arguments about an inclusive identity that encompasses Israelis and Palestinians. Is that your view of the ideal end-game? They would certainly salivate with excitement at your statement below:

    “And yes, I think remembering that there is no substantial difference between Arabs and Jews in Palestine as such would be a good start. The division between “Israelis” and “Palestinian” is artificial and you know that. It’s a division that doesn’t help the people who actually live in the region.”

    If so , I’m afraid to tell you that the region is going in the exact opposite direction of separation and fragmentation rather than unity.

30. Andrew Brehm on June 24th, 2007 6:06 pm

    “but that doesn’t mean Israel and its army are as pure as the driven snow either.”

    I didn’t say anything about Israel.

    My view of the ideal end game is somewhat different. In fact, I plan to write about that soon. I see “Palestinian” as a term describing both Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, because that is what the word means: the people are named after the region, not vice versa. Hence the term describes not a certain race but all inhabitants.

    I certainly don’t want a bi-national state. We have seen that fail in 1948 and I don’t think the past few decades have made it more possible.

    The region is going into the opposite direction, that is true; but the reason for that is that people are forgetting that one nationality dominating is not the only way to co-exist.

31. The Raccoon on June 24th, 2007 10:03 pm

    Andrew:

    “I see “Palestinian” as a term describing both Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Palestine”

    Well, bugger it, bro. I will not be called “Invader” from “Invaderland”. I will not have my homeland, the land of Yehuda and Israel, named after our ancestral enemies; frankly, I’d rather have their name removed forever from the pages of history.

    Although it is somehow… fitting… that a bunch of Arabs, Egyptians and Berbers who invaded our homeland call themselves Invaders in our own tongue.

32. Nizo on June 24th, 2007 10:28 pm

    Raccoon, the Berbers are coming, the berbers are coming, hide the children!

33. The Raccoon on June 25th, 2007 8:00 am

    Nizo -

    I know that you’re a cunning Berber who devours Raccoon cubs for dinner!

    *stares suspiciously at Nizo*

34. Andrew Brehm on June 25th, 2007 8:57 am

    Raccoon,

    Yeah, I should have mentioned that I don’t like the term “Palestine” for the region anyway. After all, the Romans named it thus to disconnect the land from the people G-d (allegedly) wanted to live there.

    I always found it ironic that self-proclaimed very devout Muslims (_NOT_ Nizo, to avoid another misunderstanding) find it so important to call the land by the name the pagans gave it to erase its connection with Allah’s will. I wonder if the extremists could make their “case” as well if they named the land like the Qur’an named it: the land given to the people of Israel.

    The point is that excluding one group is exactly a symptom of the source of the problem.

    Either way, it is very ironic that while most Jews call the land “Israel”, the name which Muhammed associated with it, (so-called) Muslim extremists call the land “Palestine”, the name which the pagan Romans gave to the land to erase its connection with Allah.

35. Nizo on June 25th, 2007 5:15 pm

    “(_NOT_ Nizo, to avoid another misunderstanding) ”

    Andrew, I’m neither devout nor muslim blast away

36. nominally challenged on June 25th, 2007 5:33 pm

    Slightly off the topic, but in fact, the current belief in archaeological circles is that at least in the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, the ‘Philistines’ (most likely Minoans from Crete or thereabouts) and the Judeans were on good terms, the Philistines even adopting at least the Judean form of writing. They traded and interacted as neighbors. The stories about the “evil” Philistines came much later, when the various books of the Bible were actually written. By this stage, one can presume, they were no longer friends. Presumably though, after a period of several hundred years, they were no more “invaders” than anyone else, even though that is how they have become known to posterity.

37. The Raccoon on June 25th, 2007 8:39 pm

    NC -

    Yup. And King David worked as a mercenary for them, too… but the name and the historic weight it carries are heavy on my ear.

    BTW, it is most likely that our ancestors alternatively traded and fought with the “uncircumcised invaders”… pen tesamakh-na bnot ha Pleshtim, pen ta’aloz-na bnot ha-’arelim…

38. Andrew Brehm on June 25th, 2007 8:46 pm

    “Andrew, I’m neither devout nor muslim blast away ”

    I know. I just wanted to make it totally clear that I wasn’t talking about people like you.

39. Andrew Brehm on June 27th, 2007 8:42 am

    I just read on a German news site that Abbas has declared ALL Palestinian militias illegal:

    http://www.n-tv.de/819729.html

    (Apart from blogs I prefer German news sites over American sites or the BBC because German sites tend to be less anti-American and anti-Israel.)

    It seems to me that Abbas has been waiting for such a chance for a long time. Finally at least a minority of the Arab street understand that Israel is not the enemy, or at least not as serious an enemy as Iran and her clients.

    I always though Abbas wanted his own state. And obviously, without Israels help he cannot get one. So he must have spent some time trying to figure out how to be on Israel’s side without losing whatever support he has among the Arab street.

Leave a Reply