Palestinian update

[a_unique_person]

But as Demon and Dave put it....it's all about Israel's apartheid policies and Israeli settlements and if the settlements would just stop it would all be over.... ya...right...

Given that the whole war was based on the taking of land for the creation of Israel, it is a fair conclusion to reach..

 

[Drooper]

This suggests to me that the average Israeli is in a position to begin to come to grips with the reality of the founding of Israel and is thereby more able to consider the possibility of stopping the colonization efforts and realistically addressing Palestinian grievances.

Are you saying that the Isaerli population in general is against the founding of an indpendent Palestinian state??

That just doens't stack up. From the recent (last couple of decades) of Israeli political history, ther eis more evidence that there is an extremist minority hellbent on taking over the whole territory, but the overwhelming majority would be happy to have a peaceful coexistance with an autonomous Palesitian neighbour. Just don't confuse the fact that above all that Israelis place a premium on their own security - not surprising given their need to defend themselves over history.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1097985301726

What can you believe Mr Drooper? A girl is shot dead, because she might have a bomb? Then a member of the IDF empties the contents of his automatic weapon into her body.

His companions are shocked and horrified, but no fault is found. It never is. The problem is from the top. No attack or killing is wrong, if it is against a palestinians, even a young girl who is going to school and runs in fear of her life.

 

[a_unique_person]

Are you saying that the Isaerli population in general is against the founding of an indpendent Palestinian state??

That just doens't stack up. From the recent (last couple of decades) of Israeli political history, ther eis more evidence that there is an extremist minority hellbent on taking over the whole territory, but the overwhelming majority would be happy to have a peaceful coexistance with an autonomous Palesitian neighbour. Just don't confuse the fact that above all that Israelis place a premium on their own security - not surprising given their need to defend themselves over history.

Their security is not the issue, it is taking all the land of the biblical times that is the over riding issue. Not for all Israelis, but those who want to do just that.

 

[Drooper]

There was no grand consipracy to completely displace the Palestinians. Instead there were constant efforts made to coexist - even by the Zionists. Here is an extract from Martin Gilbert's Israel.

The efforts of the Zionist leaders to come to some agreement with the Arabs of Palestine in the early 1930s were continuous.The most important of these eforts came on 18 July 1934 when Ben-Gurion and Dr Magnus met Auni Abdul Hadi, the leader of the movement devoted to Palestinian Arab independence. Ben-Gurion asked Abdul Hadi bluntly, "is it possible to reconcile the ultimate goals of the Jewish people and the Arab people?" and went on to tell his Arab interlocutor:

Our ultimate goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan.....
....If the Arabs would agree to our return to our land, we would help them with our political, financial and moral support to bring about the rebirth and unity of the Arab people.

And Ben-Gurion, who was adamant that Jewish settlement in Palestine should not in any way amount to "stealing" or taking anything from the Palestinian Arabs. Again from Gilbert, relating Ben-Gurion talks with Abdul Hadi.

When Dr Magnus asked Auni whether the Arabs were willing to 'sacrifice Palestine in order to attain the broader goal in the other Arab countries [meaning overthrow of French and British colonial rule]' Ben-Gurion interjected to say that 'we did not wish the Arabs to "sacrifice" Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs would not be sacrificed so that Zionism might be realised. According to our conception of Zionism, we were neither desirous nor capable of building our future in Palestine at the expense of the Arabs.'

This, admittedly better researched, information couldn't paint a more different picture to the one that AUP tries to contruct from zero reading at all.

[edited for spelling]

 

[Drooper]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1097985301726

What can you believe Mr Drooper? A girl is shot dead, because she might have a bomb? Then a member of the IDF empties the contents of his automatic weapon into her body.

His companions are shocked and horrified, but no fault is found. It never is. The problem is from the top. No attack or killing is wrong, if it is against a palestinians, even a young girl who is going to school and runs in fear of her life.

Stop being such a brainless twit by misrepresenting my position.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Their security is not the issue, it is taking all the land of the biblical times that is the over riding issue. Not for all Israelis, but those who want to do just that.

Security is totally the issue. Every single treaty the Palestinian Authority has signed recalls the obligations of the Palestinian Authority to stop terrorism from it's territory. Before 'settlements' were an issue hijacking aircraft, terrorism at the Olympics in Munich, the airport in Rome, Tel Aviv and on the streets of Jerusalem was an issue. Before 'the wall' was an issue suicide bombers on buses, in restaurants, in discos and shopping malls was the issue. Before the bulldozers started knocking down houses reward payments to suicide bombers, indoctrination of teen soldiers, Palestinian Authority Policemen supporting terrorists and illegal weapon shipments by members of the Palestinian Authority was the issue.

Before Al Queda the world only had the PLO as the preeminent international terror group. Then the PLO was handed the fate of 4 million Palestinians on a silver platter and look what great accomplishments the PLO...er...Palestinian Authority has accomplished for the Palestinians since 1993. Nothing.

A girl is shot dead, because she might have a bomb? Then a member of the IDF empties the contents of his automatic weapon into her body.

a_u_p is going to exploit this tragic event for all it's worth...mark my words.

 

[Mycroft]

That was happening after Oslo, with their economy growing. Something had to be done to end that, and it was.

The point is it wasn't happening. Israel ceded territory to the Palestinian-Arabs, provided weapons and training for their "security force" all on the promise that Arafat would bring terrism under control. Instead, Arafat used these resources to continue his war of terror.

The land that was bought for Jews was never to be sold to arabs. Constraint of trade.

The land wasn't to be sold again period. It was to be leased to Jewish immigrants who were willing and capable of developing it. As I said before, this same agency today also leases land to Israeli-Arabs, often under terms better than what is available to Israeli-Jews under Israeli affirmative action.

Time and time again you prove you have no interest in learning history. Once you find an interpretation that allows you to vilify Zionists/Israelis/Jews, you stop because that's all you want.

 

[davefoc]

Drooper, I have no doubt that many Zionists (certainly David Ben Gurion among others) wanted to treat the indigenous population fairly. This is not the issue. They had good intentions with regards to this.

However, they had two other goals which were more important to them than the fair treatment of the indigenous population. Namely:

The mass immigration of Jews into Palestine.

The isolation of the Jewish population from the indigenous population.

And when their two highest priorities got in the way of the fair treatment of the indigenous population then something had to go.

A Ben Gurion quote because I know ZN likes them:

We are not blind, withal, to the fact that Palestine is no void. Some million Arabs inhabit both sides of Jordan, and not since yesterday. Their right to lie in Palestine, develop it and win national autonomy is a incontrovertible as is ours to return and, by our own means and merit, uplift ourselves to independence. The two can be realized. We must, in our work in Palestine, respect Arab rights, and if our first contact was unhappy, we were not in the wrong. Nor, perhaps, were the Arabs, for there are historic imponderables.

-Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, page 35

Another Ben Gurion quote:

And it is just now that the Arab-Jewish quarrel has come to a head, the gravity of the problem is once more manifest, and every Englishman asks himself in bewilderment: Who is right? One side says: 'We have been living here, not for a matter of days or months, but for 1,400 years. Our fathers and forefathers are buried here. Grant us liberty to live as we please, give us a democratic government, let us be ruled by elected representatives, as you are. Why should you strangers govern us from afar?' These arguments he will understand because they are straightforward, because of the elementary appeal. The other side is the Jewish people, with a genalogy of 3,500 years, the Bible as its sacrosanct title-deed to Palestine, and a promise from the British Government.

-Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, starting on page 99

Both quotes go, I think to indicate Droopers point. The Zionists were concerned about the welfare of the indigenous population and wanted to treated them fairly.

The second quote goes to the root problem. The blind belief in a notion that a collection of half truths and complete myths in some way conveyed on a people the moral right to replace an indigenous population. It is very hard to argue with a man that claims God has made this land mine, especially when he's pointing a gun to your head.

 

[davefoc]

I do not know who is right and wrong about whether their was Palestinian terrorism first that was used to justify the continuation of the colonization of Palestinian land or whether the colonization effort continued first and then there were incidents of Palestinian terrorism after the Oslo peace negotiations.

Does it matter? Israel wants to expand. Israel does expand. If Israel didn't want to expand it doesn't have to. Does somebody really think that Israel expands as a result of Palestinian terrorist incidents?

Israel expands because it has some citizens that are driven by the same zeal that drove the original zionists. Right now those citizens may not even be in the majority but because of the nature of the Israeli political system and IMHO American encouragement of Israeli expansion Israel continues to expand.

ZN, says the Palestinians lost wars and have failed to prevent terrorist attacks that originate from their territory so they deserve whatever misery they get. This is the ultimate stick and dog version of morality. Poke a dog and if he growls poke him harder, eventually you will get tired of poking the dog or the dog will die. Either way you have acted morally. If the dog had ever stopped growling you would have stopped poking it, maybe.

 

[demon]

ZN:
"Security is totally the issue"

Not so.
I suspect that "security", fear, or defence might be driving "some" of the Israeli population, but it doesn't drive many other Israelis, as it certainly doesn't drive the leaders of the broad spectrum of Israeli politics.

The Israeli governmants of the last 40 years, from Labour to Likud and national unity governments, do not keep their "boot on the neck" of the Palestinianans for reasons of fear or security or defence. Their actions have intentionally provoked violence, not just been a cause for violence. "Insecurity" is a state that Israel has used for the broader strategem of bulldozing Palestinian homes, stealing land and thus broadening their colonisation.

This is the premise from which the much demanded cessation of violence from the Palestinians needs to be argued, for to argue that an oppressor who oppresses harshly is justified because otherwise it will wreak violent repercussions from the oppressed is to misunderstand what is going on here as an "occupation". It's not, its a colonisation.

Nothing could be clearer.

 

[Drooper]

Drooper, I have no doubt that many Zionists (certainly David Ben Gurion among others) wanted to treat the indigenous population fairly. This is not the issue. They had good intentions with regards to this.

However, they had two other goals which were more important to them than the fair treatment of the indigenous population. Namely:

The mass immigration of Jews into Palestine.

The isolation of the Jewish population from the indigenous population.

And when their two highest priorities got in the way of the fair treatment of the indigenous population then something had to go.

A Ben Gurion quote because I know ZN likes them:


-Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, page 35

Another Ben Gurion quote:


-Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, starting on page 99

Both quotes go, I think to indicate Droopers point. The Zionists were concerned about the welfare of the indigenous population and wanted to treated them fairly.

The second quote goes to the root problem. The blind belief in a notion that a collection of half truths and complete myths in some way conveyed on a people the moral right to replace an indigenous population. It is very hard to argue with a man that claims God has made this land mine, especially when he's pointing a gun to your head.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

The point that some here are trying to make to AUP is that there are two sides to this dispute, BOTH of which have aims that cannot be met without some measure of compromise, BOTH have extremist elements that are willing to do some morally reprehensible things.

Your posts seem to tip to his way of thinking, especially when you state that:

The second quote goes to the root problem. The blind belief in a notion that a collection of half truths and complete myths in some way conveyed on a people the moral right to replace an indigenous population

When you clearly quoted Ben-Gurion as stating:

Their right to lie in Palestine, develop it and win national autonomy is a incontrovertible as is ours to return

Clearly this completely contradicts your assertion.


Then you also state that:

they had two other goals which were more important to them than the fair treatment of the indigenous population. Namely:

The mass immigration of Jews into Palestine.

The isolation of the Jewish population from the indigenous population.

Let's first admit that these "goals" are your own invention, unless you can provide some proof otherwise.

But let's consider them. The mass migration of Jews into palestine. Well, yes, but why did that preclude a peaceful settlement and coexistance with the Palestinian Arabs?? Look back to my earlier post and see that the Zionist believed that it was in their own interests to reach a mutually beneficial solition to coexistance. Read this bit again:

According to our conception of Zionism, we were neither desirous nor capable of building our future in Palestine at the expense of the Arabs.'

Your second goal: The isolation of the Jewish population. That was never the case. People like Ben-Gurion envisaged a Jewish naton, of around 4 million people, which would give them a majority in part of Palestine and hence their own state. It was far from isolationist.

 

[a_unique_person]

There was no grand consipracy to completely displace the Palestinians. Instead there were constant efforts made to coexist - even by the Zionists. Here is an extract from Martin Gilbert's Israel.

[/i]

And Ben-Gurion, who was adamant that Jewish settlement in Palestine should not in any way amount to "stealing" or taking anything from the Palestinian Arabs. Again from Gilbert, relating Ben-Gurion talks with Abdul Hadi.


This, admittedly better researched, information couldn't paint a more different picture to the one that AUP tries to contruct from zero reading at all.

[edited for spelling] [/QUOTE]

And Ben Gurion said that Israel should not hold onto the Gaza and WestBank. If you look at the current ruckus going on in Likud, you can see how many Israelis will do that at any cost, and never had any intention of giving any of it back.

Zionism is not just a unified force, it is made up of many different viewpoints, and those who push the boundaries are those who are setting the boundaries.

 

[a_unique_person]

Security is totally the issue. Every single treaty the Palestinian Authority has signed recalls the obligations of the Palestinian Authority to stop terrorism from it's territory. Before 'settlements' were an issue hijacking aircraft, terrorism at the Olympics in Munich, the airport in Rome, Tel Aviv and on the streets of Jerusalem was an issue. Before 'the wall' was an issue suicide bombers on buses, in restaurants, in discos and shopping malls was the issue. Before the bulldozers started knocking down houses reward payments to suicide bombers, indoctrination of teen soldiers, Palestinian Authority Policemen supporting terrorists and illegal weapon shipments by members of the Palestinian Authority was the issue.

Before Al Queda the world only had the PLO as the preeminent international terror group. Then the PLO was handed the fate of 4 million Palestinians on a silver platter and look what great accomplishments the PLO...er...Palestinian Authority has accomplished for the Palestinians since 1993. Nothing.

a_u_p is going to exploit this tragic event for all it's worth...mark my words.

There is something wrong with that? It represents much of what is wrong with current position of Israel.

a) Armed occupation.
b) Armed occupation.

 

[CapelDodger]

Quotes from Ben-Gurion can support either side of this question. Here's one:

Transfer of population has already taken place ... You are aware of the work of the Jewish National Fund in this respect. Now a transfer of wholly different dimensions will have to be carried out. In various parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arabs ... It is important that this plan comes from the [Peel] Commission, not from us ... The transfer of population is what makes possible a comprehensive settlement program.

[From speech delivered at 20th Zionist Congress, 1937]

Ben-Gurion understood what had to be said to mollify international - and particularly US - opinion. Right from the First Zionist Congress the question was asked "But what about the people living there?". And from Herzl onwards the answer was "We'll be happy to live amongst them, and we'll bring superior European ways and development so they'll be happy to live with us", but within the movement - a different audience - there was acceptance from the start that "transfer" of the Arab population would be necessary. And it happened, of course.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

The point that some here are trying to make to AUP is that there are two sides to this dispute, BOTH of which have aims that cannot be met without some measure of compromise, BOTH have extremist elements that are willing to do some morally reprehensible things.

Then you may as well stop wasting your time, as I already know this. If you care to follow my posts, you will notice that there are jewish people who post on this board I have a lot of respect for, and not because they attack Israel for being evil and meet my standards of behaviour, but because they look at the situation and question what is going on. I don't believe that people like this, if they were in charge of the decision making process, would put up with what is going on one minute longer than is necessary for it to be ended.

However, they are not running the show. The decision makers are currently having a massive upheaval over withdrawing even from Gaza. Wedge politics is used once again to force Israel as a whole into a position that is politically and morally untenable.

I have no illusions, also, as to the failings of the Palestinians position. However, this was largely forced on them. Prior to the creation of Israel, I do not believe that Palestinians were any more or less violent or inhuman than any other group in that area. Now, as their society crumbles, the descent into lawlessness and extremism is paraded by the likes of Mycroft as a reason to deride and dehumanise these people as animals, worthy of nothing more than contempt and ridicule.

Your posts seem to tip to his way of thinking, especially when you state that:


When you clearly quoted Ben-Gurion as stating:



Clearly this completely contradicts your assertion.


Then you also state that:


Let's first admit that these "goals" are your own invention, unless you can provide some proof otherwise.

But let's consider them. The mass migration of Jews into palestine. Well, yes, but why did that preclude a peaceful settlement and coexistance with the Palestinian Arabs?? Look back to my earlier post and see that the Zionist believed that it was in their own interests to reach a mutually beneficial solition to coexistance. Read this bit again:


Your second goal: The isolation of the Jewish population. That was never the case. People like Ben-Gurion envisaged a Jewish naton, of around 4 million people, which would give them a majority in part of Palestine and hence their own state. It was far from isolationist.

Ben-Gurion was completely ignored. He called for the withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, so that the Palestinians could have some sort of future, after Israel had created it's boundaries. He did not realise the forces he had unleashed.

 

[Jim Bowen]

I guess that the Israeli - Palestinian going ons just show that you can't drive a people from their land, deny them the right to return and then expect them to be grateful for it.

Jim Bowen

 

[davefoc]

davefoc asserted that:

...they had two other goals which were more important to them[referring to Zionists] than the fair treatment of the indigenous population. Namely:

The mass immigration of Jews into Palestine.

The isolation of the Jewish population from the indigenous population.

Drooper's response was:

Let's first admit that these "goals" are your own invention, unless you can provide some proof otherwise.

Drooper, I am not exactly how to take this statement. especially with respect to the first goal that I listed. This was exactly what Zionism was about. Throughtout the writings of the time people list how many Jews have immigrated to and emmigrated from Eretz Israel. Always with the idea that more is better. This was the holy cause of Zionism. If the organization had any goal it was this.

If you disagree with me that it was a more important goal to Zionists than the fair treatment of the indigenous population perhaps you could make a case for that. Especially if you coluld find some writings of a prominent Zionist or any Zionist for that matter that would suggest that well being of the indigenous population or the feelings of the indigenous population about the immigration should be taken into account when the Zionists were going all over the world recruting Jews to come to Israel.

I also think there is considerable evidence to support the idea that a primary goal of Zionism was isolation from the indigenous population. I think the pressure to get Jews to hire only Jews, the purchase of land for Jewish only settlements, the adoption of a language that only Jews would speak and just the general fact that Zionists at least to my knowledge never had anything in mind other than Jews living in their villages and Arabs living in theirs seem like pretty strong evidence in support of this notion.

 

[davefoc]

Drooper I have now read your posts again and realize that at least part of your point was that the Zionists were cosiderate of the well being of the indigenous population.

I didn't pick up on this the first time I read your post, because I thought I had made it clear that I agreed with you on this. You provided a quote in support of your idea. I could have provided many more. Perhaps, it could be argued, that some of this was to mollify the world criticism of the Zionist idea or to mollify segments within Zionism that were particularly sympathetic to the indigenous population of Palestine. I don't take it that way. I think the Zionists for the most part cared about the indigenous population and even if they didn't they realized it was in their best interest not to live next to hostile individuals.

My assertion was that treating the indigenous population of Palestine fairly was not the highest priority of Zionism and when the higher priority goals interfered with the fair treatment of the indigenous population it was not the higher priority goals that were put aside.

For what its worth I see Zionism, although unigue in some ways, as sharing much in common with standard European attitudes towards colonization including feelings of ethnic superiority, a need for ethic isolation and a general sense that might makes right and we have the might. Today these same attitudes would be seen as racist and immoral, but given the times and the historical context I think it is not quite right to judge them by contemporary senses of morrality. In addition a major driver for Zionism by many of its participants was simple self preservation further mitigating any judgment of imoorality of Zionist activity.

But that was fifty years ago. What is the justification today for continuing to run the same old play? What is the justification today for not dealing honestly with the nature of the founding of Israel?

My own sense of this is that possibly a majority of Israelis don't want to keep running the same old play. I see evidence of this all over. From American Jewish groups that work to publicize the excesses of the Sharon government to Israeli authors that deal honestly with the nature of the founding of Israel to Israeli peace groups that want to change the course that Israel is on now to editorials in major Israeli publications arguing the same kind of thing.

I think it is at least possible that a primary enabler for Israelis actions are actions by the US government. As I stated earlier I do not think US involvement in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is working for the benefit of any of the parties involved and if peace is to have a chance there the US must just get the hell out of the way

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Drooper, I am not exactly how to take this statement. especially with respect to the first goal that I listed. This was exactly what Zionism was about. Throughtout the writings of the time people list how many Jews have immigrated to and emmigrated from Eretz Israel. Always with the idea that more is better. This was the holy cause of Zionism. If the organization had any goal it was this.

Yes, the goal of Zionism was to establish a homeland for the Jewish people, their method was to encourage Jewish immigration.

Originally posted by davefoc
If you disagree with me that it was a more important goal to Zionists than the fair treatment of the indigenous population perhaps you could make a case for that.

What I disagree with is the implication that these goals were mutually exclusive, or that where they were, the priorities should have been any different.

Any movement is going to make its goals a priority. If they don't, it's not a serious movement and it will fail. Can you imagine criticizing the right-to-life crowd for not giving "fair treatment" to pregnant teens, where "fair treatment" is defined by the teen who wants an abortion? No, because this "un-fair treatment" is definitive of the movement.

Originally posted by davefoc
Especially if you coluld find some writings of a prominent Zionist or any Zionist for that matter that would suggest that well being of the indigenous population or the feelings of the indigenous population about the immigration should be taken into account when the Zionists were going all over the world recruting Jews to come to Israel.

In the early part of the twentieth century, it was a given for certain populations that they might not be welcome in places they chose to move too, or that they might not be welcome in many things they wanted to do. If you had the misfortune of being born to one of these minority populations, your choices were to respect the feelings of whomever and accept a lower status in life due to who you are, or to pursue your goals despite the feelings of those who think you should "keep in your place".

How do you expect the Zionists to pay more attention to the feelings of the indigenous Arabs when, as Jews, they wern't welcome anywhere?

Originally posted by davefoc
I also think there is considerable evidence to support the idea that a primary goal of Zionism was isolation from the indigenous population. I think the pressure to get Jews to hire only Jews, the purchase of land for Jewish only settlements, the adoption of a language that only Jews would speak and just the general fact that Zionists at least to my knowledge never had anything in mind other than Jews living in their villages and Arabs living in theirs seem like pretty strong evidence in support of this notion.

The pressure to get Jews to hire Jews wasn't for isolation, it was to provide economic suppot for Jewish immigrants.

There was nothing stopping Arabs from learning Hebrew, nor anything stopping Jews from learning Arabic. Today Israel has three national languages, Hebrew, Arabic and English. At the time, adopting Hebrew as a common language made perfect sense, as the majority of immigrants from all over the world already has a familiarity with the language. Also, one of the goals of Zionism was the revitalization of Jewish culture, and bringing Hebrew out of the synagogue and into common useage was an important part of that.

If the Jewish immigrants had moved into Arab towns, then they really would have been guilty of displacing the natives. Instead, they built new towns. I believe this is in part a cultural relic from pre-Zionist days. Different peoples lived in different areas. Like in Iraq, where the Kurds live in their own areas.