Israel And Palestine

[Section 8]

I'm aware that we already have a topic on the Road Map to Peace, but that is to concentrated on Bush's doomed Middle East "Peace" Plan. It is my belief that the Palestinians are not the only ones guilty of such hanous crimes. Israelis have killed over 2480 Palestinians since the beginning of the second intifada. This is disturbing in the least. One cannot forget the Palestinians. What they fail to realise is that another option is peaceful protest. Sit down in the middle of crowded Tel Aviv streets. There are many other ways besides killing to get one's point across.
On the anniversary of the third Intifada both Palestinians and Israelis need to make serious reforms to their policies of bloodshed.

Have Fun
Shalom

[Geoff332]

Well, my ideal situation would be to have a UN sponsored international force there eforcing the original UN resolutions (starting with the '46 resolution), and ship about half the leaders on both sides off for war crimes trials (including both Sharon and Arafat).

But that's never going to happen, so we need to look for more practical solutions. Part of the problem is the popular leadership on either side are not of a mind for peace. To the extent that these leaders reflect their constituant populations, it seems that no peace is likely to emerge internally.

Naturally, you're going to get people telling us that the Israelis have done nothing wrong and it's all Arab aggression; or that the Palestinians are fully justified in fighting for their homeland. Unfortunately, both of those views are largely ignorant of history.

I know I haven't offered any answers (well, one which I freely admit is a non-starter), but I'm not sure there are answers. I think any practical solution will revolve around the US using its one really big stick (cutting aid to Israel), but that's not going to happen under the current administration.

[RebelWithanAK]

...tho it might happen under the next. Frankly, there've been so many people who have had control over the area in question that I wonder why anyone actually feels entitled to it. The Israelis got it originally by conquest and lost it by conquest, which isn't to say that all of them left, per se. The Palestinians rather much stayed where they were in those patches of land as they changed hands over and over and over. The media's hyperbolies about how it's unthinkable that the Palestinians would dare conduct suicide bombing campaigns and snipe at roving IDF troops in the ghettos are quite similar to when alternative news sources cry bloody murder about when bullet-proof bulldozers take entire neighborhoods to be harboring terrorists and act accordingly, or how helicopter gunships blow up taxis in crowded districts because they contained suspected PLO officials...

That said, the Israelis now, what with their strategic walled settlements and many controversial and feasibly sinister policies, certainly have a military advantage and have had no qualms in using it under the tenure of Netanyahu and Sharon. However, we do know a couple of things - The Israelis are using American-made artillery, and that suicide bombing is a nationalist, not a religious act. Give the Palestinians a fair share, and there will be no bombing. If that involves abandoning settlements - not just "we promise not to make any new settlements after 2006," but actually leaving the ones already built - then get the fuck out. The Palestinians chose bombing because it was shocking, and more importantly that it was proven to work: Suicide bombing got the Israelis out of Lebanon. After all, you really can't compromise with a suicide bomber.

As a purely pragmatic fashion (which is usually only possible in an emergency), all the US needs to do is cut aid to Israel until they comply. What with the sudden cutoff in the military and the US-led instability in neighboring states, even a diehard like Sharon would be willing to negotiate a deal.

[Section 8]

The problem is that both want Jerusalem, because it contains holy sites for both religions. Also the biggest problem that is stopping the countries achieve peace is Arafat, Hamas, and the hardline Israeli leadership. There is also the problem of appointing a prime minister. The U.S. and Israel want a pro Israel prime minister. If that happens than he will suffer the same fate. Also if the US cuts military aid to Israel, than it will give the Palestinians the upper hand, which will lead to increased fighting and deaths. The Israeli government might also have to make cuts in vital areas and turn into mini North Korea. There is no easy solution. It has to start with leaders and the media in Palestine. So far all they're doing is promoting violence. Imagine if the upcoming generations were taught about Gandhi, and about peace.

Have Fun
Shalom

[RebelWithanAK]

Section 8,

- The Palestinians have no weapons beyond aging Soviet small arms, whereas they're against the most militarized nation in the world by GDP. To paraphrase Einstein, you can't simultaneously seek peace and prepare for war. That said, we're not in the job of evening the scales, we're in the job of ending the fighting - and we directly control one of the two parties. Cut their damned funding - or do you really believe the propoganda that the Arabs are so inhuman as to want to drive the Israelis into the sea?

- Arafat is belligerent, yes. Hamas is belligerent, yes. But so are the IDF and Sharon, but we're not bulldozing Sharon's headquarters, now are we? Not to mention that just because Arafat is a popular leader doesn't mean he's got his hands in all the terrorist pots. What's a bit more disturbing is that both Sharon and Bush would rather prop up some exile nobody to sit at the other end of their diplomatic table than the actual representative of the Palestinians. At least Clinton got them into a room together.

- The reason there is still fighting is because the side of the Israelis - ie: "our" side - has failed to make an acceptable compromise on the division of the land. Jerusalem is already divided - we're talking about the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, for instance. The plan they gave was to have a "Palestine" compromised of three distinct and unconnected ghettos which would effectively destroy any economic feasibility for those Arabs. We must do what it takes to get even the hardliners to drive a fair bargain.

[Geoff332]

if the US cuts military aid to Israel

The threat of a cut -- and not a complete elimination, but a reduction -- would bring Israel to the table. Plus the US provides significant economic aid (as well as hugely preferred trading status) to Israel, and cutting that would have pretty serious effects on the Israeli economy.

Rebel
Arrafat is a known terrorist. This is not even vaguely ambiguos. Sharon is as bad (something I admitted, and Section 8 at least implied). One of the reasons you rarely hear a viable solution to the problem is because of the tendancy to blame it all on one side or the other ("The reason there is still fighting is because the side of the Israelis - ie: "our" side - has failed to make an acceptable compromise on the division of the land." -- Palestine has refused to even negotiate with anything less than a complete return of the lands to the 1947 boundaries). The point is that both sides are being truculant; both have a share of responsibility. Both have committed attrocities.

The main problem I see is that the distrust and hatred is deeply ingrained in both cultures. Most people forget that Zionist jews lived quite happily in Palestine under the British mandate pre-WWII. There was a peaceful and quite successful co-habitation for a long time. There were extremist dissidents on both sides, but the majority just got on with life. The whole thing was largely bollixed by the handling of the hand-over of land to the two sides, the immigration of large numbers of Jews (who were understandably pissed off after Hitler had tried to kill them all), then the invasion of Israel by it's Arab neighbours (Jordan, Syria and Egypt). Israel got hijacked by hardliners, backed by a vast majority who (justly) felt they had been pushed around too much.

[Section 8]

As I said one of the main problems is the media. In America we treat all Palestinians as terrorists, and think the hardliners are just fighting in self-defense. Israeli soldiers have been order to execute Palestinian "terrorists" that have already been subdued. Israel created the problem. Slowly hardliners are taking over rational peace lovers. The more bombing attacks there are the more the Israeli resolve strengthens. Then more people like Sharon get elected. If the hardliners stepped down and stopped attacking Palestinian settlements, many would look for the Palestinians to take the initiative for peace.

Have Fun
Shalom

[Geoff332]

If the hardliners stepped down and stopped attacking Palestinian settlements, many would look for the Palestinians to take the initiative for peace.

Which is where and how the US's big stick should be wielded -- to achieve that end.

The media is certainly part of the polarisation of the debate -- each side seeing the other as being all terrorists or opressors or wanting everyone from the other side dead. The actions and attrocities on either side provide the raw material. Mix that with an effective propaganda machine on both sides, and you have the ground work for a very strong 'us' vs 'them' debate. When you consider the immediate history of the Jewish nation when Israel was formed, you can understand their attitudes. They'd been the target of an attempt to wipe their race out and you can be sure that once they were given a country, they were not going to give it up without a fight.

(As a side note, when Israel and Palestine were formed, the British and/or the UN should have remained there to establish stable Governments in each country and then guaranteed protection to both against their neighbours beyond that; the nations would have taken longer to form, but the result would have been a lot more stable rather than based on fighting for their survival. Should have beens are easy to see but have not practical application, but looking at how a problem could have been prevented sometimes helps you find solutions).

The key issue to go forward is trust. One of the key problems is the primary force for Israel is the military; for Palestine, they are largely independant groups such as Hamas. Israel can stop most of the violence it initiates by giving clear executive orders to the military; Palestine can tell Hamas to stop and try to enforce that, but given that Hamas is not under the direct control of the Palestinian authority, they cannot guarantee their success. This will mean that it is likely to be imperfect, and there will be some attacks. It's also likely that there will be cases of Israeli settlers acting independantly, but this is less common (because the IDF usually takes care of it).

The problem then is that Israeli Government trusts neither the intention nor the ability of the PA to stop all terrorist attacks, so it makes this a non-negotiable requirement of any peace talks. The PA lacks the ability to guarantee a complete ceasation of violence, even if they have the intention (something I am not entirely convinced of, either). On the Israali side, their continued policy of extra-judicial killings (in clear violation of the human rights accords) breeds hatred and resentment amoung the Palestinians. Their methods (military strikes to eliminate targets, with little concern for 'collatoral damage') fuel this enemity.

I think if I were Israeli, it would be hard for me not to hate Palestinians; if I were Palestinian, it would be hard for me not to hate Israelis. I think that statement, better than anything else, sums up the problem in Israel and the Occupied Terroritories.

A genuine co-operative effort between the PA and the IDF could probably eliminate most (but not all) of the threat against Israel. But the distrust and the political realities make this impossible -- no Government on either side would survive such a decision at their next election. This is why I think an international force will almost certainly be required -- to achieve a degree of neutrality.

[Section 8]

Geoff, Israel cannot stop the violence by giving clear executive orders, some generals act on their own, and it is unfeasible to think that you can control all of these people. Other than that it's about right.

Have Fun
Shalom

[RebelWithanAK]

Section 8, Israel can control the IDF but it shows little intention in stopping the reprisals - after all, Israel's first and foremost goal is the 'defense' of Israel. Where Israel stops and Palestine begins is anybody's guess...

Geoff, the hyperbolic platitudes of how the Palestinians won't accept any offer at all, or how Arafat - since he can't force Hamas to obey cease-fires - is a terrorist, is just as banal as the rest of the propoganda spewing back and forth and it muddles the entire situation as it stands. I know two Israelis and a Palestinian who got out with a Lebanese passport, and all of them want nothing more than peace - the Israelis were even willing to make further concessions for it.

The Palestinians don't want anyone else but Arafat - our latest debacle this past month showed that - but it's not like he can do anything but be a hardliner "the bombings will continue" because there are tanks at his door and demands for his exile. Some peace talks.

[Geoff332]

how Arafat - since he can't force Hamas to obey cease-fires - is a terrorist

Arafat is a terrorist because he has acted as a terrorist in the past. The reasons are to do with links to him actively funding and possibly ordering and planning terrorist acts (including the attack on the Israeli teams at the 72 Olympics in Munich). His inability to get Hamas to do what he tells has nothing to do wtih the accusations of his terrorist activities.

This isn't recent (and, like most things on this topic, a search ends up with polarised opinions). I'm not accusing Arafat of currently being involved in terrorist activities, but it's very unlikely that he hasn't been involved in these activities in the past.

What I also admited was that Sharon was cut from the same cloth. The fact that Sharon used an army and an intelligence service doesn't make him any less guilty than Arafat. In either case, both should be tried for their pasts. If the evidence doesn't stand up in court, then that's good enough for me. It should, however, be taken to that stage.

I also acknowledged that he was the elected leader of the Palestinians. When the Palestinians elect people like Arafat and the Israeli's elect people like Sharon, it is indicative of the distrust between the peoples.

[RebelWithanAK]

Well, it'd be an interesting event were they both to be put on the board for past war crimes, tho it means I'm gonna have to wade through more accusational crap backlog through the years just to satisfy my own curiosity...

I believe the fact that they're both elected leaders tells me that both populations are scared shitless more than angry. After all, we do have Bush, now don't we?

[Geoff332]

the fact that they're both elected leaders tells me that both populations are scared shitless more than angry

I suspect it's a little of both -- mixed in with ignorance and mis-information. What I was suggesting was that both sides felt that the more extreme leadership was more capable of protecting them. Neither side trust the other, so they want a strong leadership to protect them. Is fear the underlying motivation? I'm sure it's a factor, but I don't know how much of one.

Something I forgot to mention was that in the early 90s, Arafat denounced terrorism (for which he jointly received a Nobel Peace Prize). There are mixed opinions about whether he really meant it or not. I genuinely don't know the answer to this. I strongly suspect he knows a lot more than he lets on about terrorist activities, but just how much he knows and how he uses his influence is largely speculative. In private, he may be trying behind the scenes to tone down Hamas, and without him there the violence could be a lot worse. Alternatively, he could be presenting his public face against terrorism, while privately supporting Hamas in one way or another. We simply do not know.

Oh, and on the control of the IDF -- I don't think it's perfect control, but I think their control over the IDF would be much stronger than Arafat's control over Hamas. The main problem Israel would face would be the settlers in the Occupied Territories. They are generally highly conservative, highly militant and highly anti-Palestinian.

[Section 8]

Arafat and Hamas are just allies, one could say that Hamas and the IDF are the ones holding the cards. Hamas is in control of Arafat, because Arafat can say whatever he wants, Hamas takes action. Whichever way you slice anyone who takes action instead of talking holds more cards. As I said before Israelis must stop taking the initiative. After the IDF played its cards then it's the Palestinians turn. If no one will skip their turn then the violence will just continue. If Hamas skips their turn the violence will still happen. IDF has to take the initiative. The attacks are useless, all they do is send people from both sides farther to the hardliners. After the Palestinian conflict is disolved, I would like to see leaders from both sides be charged with war crimes. It is imperative that both sides be charged or else the attacks would just come back in full.

Have Fun
Shalom

[RebelWithanAK]

Geoff, I know about those allegations about Arafat, and while they are compelling, they are, as you said, largely speculative. I'm not saying his hands are clean, but it just breeds rumor.

Of course, the settlements and the occupied territories are the hardest to defend politically because they're well, a forceful occupation. The walls and Humvees state that much. Even Sharon admitted it, not that any concessions have gotten to the table yet.

[fedfem]

I think that if the UN expands the Security Council. and the power of the US Veto is diminished, a real road map can be drawn up. Hell, if it was up to me, I would make Jerusalem a world Cultural Center and set up UN headquarters there. There needs to be an equalizer in the region. The economic benefits would be great for both sides.

[RebelWithanAK]

Methinks the gravitational center of western monotheistic religion best be left alone by a peaceful governing body. =p

[darwinist]

The Middle East, what a wonderful place. =D

Well there are a lot of problems in the middle east. Lets take a look at recent history.

After the first World War. Churchill made a lot of agreements in the middle east. That was how trans-jordan was created. But i digress. Churchill promised Palastine to the Arabs/Palasitine's. But in true British Imperist fashion. He also promished the same land the the jews.

In the Suez crisis. The British and the French, encouraged Israel to attack Egypt. So they could land " Peace Keepers" at the Suez Canal. Therefore reclaiming an important assect.

There are two main problems.

One as a lot of people mentioned is the funding from the USA. Now i believe that this will never stop. As far aa i am aware. Please correct me if i am wrong. But no US president since the war of indepence has gotten into power. Without the backing or support of the jewish community.

Two. As one poster mentioned. You cannot compromise with terrorist. Or something like that. Put basically, Blackmail. If i don' t get my way, i blow myself up..

I am of the opion that, if you can not change some facts no matter how hard you try. Then you should concentrate on something that you can change.

I read a really good book a few years ago. In it is what i thought was a really good solution. It is Tom Clancy'' s - Sum of all Fears. Read it if you get a chance.

Basically, the Arabs took the moral high ground. In ture Gahdi style, they held peaceful demonstrations. Which forced the Isrealies into a peace settlement. This also included, turning the Holy city into the same as the Swiss guard indepent state in Italy.

[Impenitent]

"Without the backing or support of the jewish community."

the jewish community is most vocally democrat however republicans win all the time...

if the arabs did take the moral high ground that would be one thing, but have no fear, they will not...

[G. Adams]

The day people take policy advice from Tom Clancy is the day i become a troglodite, in a verrry deep cave, where the radiation won't reach me.