Palestinian State

[remedios]

Mo

One of your citations is

www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/mideast_facts.asp

I'm just curious why you would pick a site that is run by Jewish people as a source of information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Don't you think it would be wiser to steer clear of people who might not be able to remain impartial? I would no more advise getting my information from a Palestinian run site than a Jewish one. That's not to say that there are not impartial Jews or Arabs, it's simply an acknowledgement of the very real possibility of bias. I'd suggest you seek out better sources of information if you're going to rant based on the info you find there. I suggest fmep.org.

[markwashio]

But now I have a different idea. Now I favor nationhood for Palestine. Here's why:

Your arguments are very well stated. Excellent posting.

[MO]

I don't give a rat's a$$ what you think of my sources. Your source is bias, too. They all are to one side or the other. Grow up.

[remedios]

Your source is bias, too. They all are to one side or the other.

First off, I believe that should be, "[y]our source has bias, [or conversely- is biased] too."

Second off, while it's true that everyone has to come down on one side of the issue if they are going to hand out info on it, I think everyone can agree that some parties are more likely to be biased than others. Going to a site that is pro-Israeli but run by the Amish or by Christians is a far cry from going to a pro-Israeli site run by Jews.

To suggest otherwise is like saying that the best source for information on who caused an automobile accident is one of the drivers who were involved.

[Sentinel]

MO said:

That makes terrorists very happy and they welcome your support. Now go put on your tin foil hats!

I see your problem. You don't protect yourself from Mossad's brain-control devices.

[remedios]

Just an example of the remarkable things to be found at fmep.org:

In 1980, Professor Jacob Talmon of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, a renowned Israeli authority on Zionism and modern nationalism, wrote a remarkable open letter to Prime Minister Begin. Citing the lessons of history, Talmon warned that settlements and an attempt to dominate the Palestinians in the name of Jewish nationalism would produce a disaster for Israel and betray Jewish values.
. . .
The following excerpts from Talmon's message confirm its prophetic quality today, when settlements and the attempted perpetuation of Israeli control over the occupied territories threaten to create a state of permanent, violent conflict. (These excerpts are from the full version of Prof. Talmon's letter printed in Creating Facts: Israel, Palestinians and the West Bank, by Geoffrey Aronson, -------)

*********

"We are facing a situation in which the rule of law and order in on the point of collapse, with a …phenomena which makes a mockery of the dream of the revival of Jewish sovereign independence…<br>. . .
Mr. Prime Minister, with all due respect to the head of the government and the fellow historian, allow me to inform you on the basis of decades of research into the history of nationalism, that however ancient, special, noble, and unique our subject motives are, the striving to dominate and rule, at the end of the twentieth century, a hostile foreign population which is different in its language, history, culture, religion, national consciousness and aspirations, economy and social structure-is like the attempt to revive feudalism.

The question is not a moral one. The project is not practically possible, nor is it worth the price-as France, for example, learned in Algeria. Nor is the Soviet analogy relevant: we have neither the physical power nor the spiritual and moral toughness required for the job. The only way in which nations can exist in our day-disappointingly and ironically enough-is by separation. God himself and nature and history had already divided Eretz Yisrael before it was divided by human decree. The determined opposition to a hereditary status of inferiority may well be the powerful motive force impelling individuals, classes, and nations to action in the modern era. The subjection of one nation to another, i.e., political inequality, leads inevitable to social and economic inferiority, since the ruling nation, motivated by feeling of tribal solidarity and fear of a rising against their rule, will try to restrict the growth and power of the subject population, denying them access to office and responsibility to sensitive posts, and, of course, to any activity defined as "subversive." The combination of political subjection, national oppression and social inferiority is a time bomb…<br>
Isn't settlement the soul of Zionism? and what's the difference between Degania in 1913 and Elon Moreh in 1980?-that's the question asked in order to silence the critics of the settlements. If we haven't the right now, with what right did we settle then? Those who are confused by these arguments should be reminded that history is a succession of changing cir*censored*stance, and not a recapitulation of the past-a task reserved for antiquarians. It is a mutual relationship between objective changes and human ingenuity. Loyalty to historical tradition does not involve a neurotic dependence on past examples…<br>
Marx's comment about the tendency to repeat the same actions in situations outwardly similar, but which are in reality essentially different, is well known: the first repetition is tragic, the second farcical. The same can be said about the comparison between Kinneret, Ein-Harod, and the fortified settlements established at the beginning of the Yishuv, and the improvisations masquerading as "settlements" today. Those who establish them are not immigrants who somehow, with great with great difficulty made their way here, slipping over borders and crossing seas, fleeing from savage enemies and the danger of destruction. Today's "settlers" depend on tanks, helicopters, and airplanes. They came to demonstrate their presence to show their muscles, and not to plow, to sow, and to plant. Rather than being a desperate attempt to hold on to the homeland, today's settlements are political acts, whose main purpose is to determine who will be the rulers. The settlers' slogans, "showing the Ishmaelites who is boss here", "putting the Arabs in their place", well express their purpose.

Any reference to the settlements is from the onset a reference to a military struggle. It will be extremely difficult to stop the creation of a situation involving a frontal confrontation between the two peoples in a narrowly delimited area, under conditions of land shortage, using methods which recall so well agrarian conflicts between the privileged English settlers and the Irish tenants, the Prussian policies toward the Polish peasantry on Prussian territory, the same miserable combination of discrimination, tricks, bribery, confiscation, compulsion, expropriation-and, on the other hand, agrarian revolt and repression by military police…<br>
Since the state does not-or cannot dare-initiate settlements at a pace that would satisfy certain of its citizens, a fanatical "avant-garde" has sprung up that takes upon itself a national mission to embody the vision of generations. The historic pledge has been transmitted to them so that they are permitted-even obligated-to act without consideration for a fainthearted government whose laws are-to them-meant for the heathen; whose judges do not command their respect; and for whom opponents are traitors to the nation…<br>
This century has sad experience with groups "chosen by the nation", or "class representatives" who took it upon themselves to save the nation, their mission sanctioned by divine will. Such mission permitted them to tread underfoot laws of the state and human morals.

The demand of the hour is, according to them, to rouse the people into a mystical national fervor in order to oppose foreign influences and the pluralism represented by the wider world; in short, to adopt the symbols of nationalism…This distorted imperialist formulation of nationalism flooded The European states at the close of the nineteenth century… Only a hairsbreadth separated this denial of universal humanism and rationalism from the theory of race; and such a transition was not long in coming…<br>
Dear Mr. Prime Minister… The welfare and security of Israel are my concern. No less important is the character of the people and culture for which the State of Israel is sanctuary. I have misgivings that the attempt to rule over 1¼ million Arabs against their will may bring about a demoralization which will disgrace our finest dreams of spiritual and national renewal. Not only will the effort to annex the territories not provide security; it will weaken the capacity to protect ourselves from our neighbors' hostility and the opposition of the nations.

Anyone not blinded by fanaticism can make a long, saddening list of unthinkable acts perpetrated by Israelis, whether as isolated individuals or groups-as retribution, preventive action or under the notion that it is a mitzvah to judge the defenseless (let the wise suffice with a hint)… Let us not compel the Arabs to feel that they have been humiliated until they believe that hope is gone and they must die for Palestine.
. . .
As opposed to his disciples, Jabotinsky acknowledged that if "our faith is deep, so is theirs". (note: the Arabs') He refused to believe that they would sell the "future of their land" for a bowl of pottage, since every people with a land will fight against colonization by those of another race who come without…<br>
You will agree with me, Honored Prime Minister, that we have reached a critical juncture in our policy. The nation is split into two camps. One-convinced of an international conspiracy to create a PLO state orbiting the Soviet Union that would seek to annihilate Israel-demands that we multiply the settlements, creating an uncompromising policy of daring activism; such is the sole means of averting catastrophe. The second camp believes that a one-time opportunity has been opened for us to arrive at peace with our neighbors; efforts to expand and fortify our domination over the population in the territories will bring about the loss of any chance for a peace agreement and will open the door to unfathomable dangers.

…As dates become more and more pressing, so extremism mounts between the two rival parties and within the Israeli populace. The danger of civil war between Arabs and Jews, and Jews and fellow-Jews, hovers over us.

Mr. Prime Minister-your responsibility to the faith of your youth and your sense of a historical mission to convey to later generations the "fathers' legacy" in its entirety-appear more and more, in the eyes of the majority of the nation, as obsessional wishes which have no possibility of realization. They are a stumbling block source of catastrophe…<br>
1/24/02

[remedios]

Here's another interesting tidbit:

FORMER SHIN BET HEAD SPEAKS UP ON NEED FOR PEACE, PART I:
Ami Ayalon, who served as head of the Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, from February 1996 to May 2000, gave a powerful interview to Le Monde at the end of December. During the course of his conversation with reporter Sylvain Cypel, he said, "In Israel, nobody is dealing with reality anymore. It is the consequence of a flawed perception of the peace process and of the failure of Camp David. The Israelis were provided with a one-sided version: 'We were generous and they refused.' This is ridiculous. And everything that follows from this misperception is flawed...Since the 'turning point' of September 11th our leaders live in a state of euphoria. Finished are the international pressures on Israel-the way is open, they believe. This view obscures the consequences of our holding onto the Palestinian territories. And not only on the moral plane. Our state, in the spirit of its founders, has a reason to exist only if it furnishes a homeland for the Jewish people and if it is democratic. From these two perspectives, time is against us! Demographically, it [time] works for the Palestinians, and politically, in favor of Hamas and the settlers. But to fight against Hamas, it is necessary to evacuate the settlers, whose proximity with the Palestinians strengthens the hatred. Among the Palestinians, the weight of the Islamists is growing, and also that of the intellectuals who long favored the idea of two states, but now are saying 'since the Israelis will never evacuate the settlements, well, eventually there will be a binational state.' But I absolutely don't want this. This would no longer be a Jewish state. And if it remains a Jewish state, dominating an Arab population, it will no longer be democratic." (Le Monde, 12/22/01)

Now Mo, if the opinion of a former head of Shin Bet is directly at odds with yours when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, don't you think you'd best do a little more research before you open your ignorant mouth again?

[MO]

I don't consider the long winded, boring opinion of one Israeli man to be more valid than mine.

I encourage you to refrain from name calling!

[remedios]

"Long-winded" being a relative term, of course. Anyone comfortable with Tolstory or Dostoevsky would hardly find Mr. Ayalon's view "long-winded."

My point was that people who ostensibly have infinitely greater access to relevant information than you do disagree with you. This would lead an intelligent (and humble, mind you) person to conclude that he should perhaps reevaluate his position.

And I meant "ignorant" in the true sense of the word, as in "lacking information." Nothing insulting about it. Simply a statement of fact.

[MO]

No, because there are "people who ostensibly have infinitely greater access to relevant information than" I do who agree with me.

And I meant "ignorant" in the true sense of the word, as in "lacking information." Nothing insulting about it. Simply a statement of fact.

Oh my! Perhaps it is you who struggles with issues concerning humility.

[remedios]

If that were the case, why not cite the sources? Find quotes from high-ranking officials and post them. Then I can proceed to show that these people are simply Zionists and religious fanatics run amok who would say just about anything to get Israel more land. I wouldn't be surprised if these maniacs bombed a few buses themselves simply to destroy the possibility of peace.

[MO]

Why should I? You obviously have your mind made up. Anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist is a Zionist.

I support Israel and I make no apologies for it. I can look at the conflict from 1948 and beyond...from the wars that their neighbors have started since... or from over two thousand years ago. Any way I look at it, I still wind up supporting Israel. I have studied it and it's not a position that is likely to change.

There was a cease fire. An Israeli bus was just blown to bits. The bus was full of civilian men, women and children targeted because they were coming home from a religious event. Israel hunted down and killed a major leader in the terrorist group who was responsible and killed him. A headline in a BBC paper- "Israel retaliation threatens cease fire." Give me a break! Europe is pathetic and anti Semitic enough for history to repeat itself.

Israel is not responsible for Jordan's thugs! I'm surprised they haven't wiped out the lot of them. Israel has shown great restraint.

I'm not going to change your mind by posting my p.o.v. If you want to know mine, read Daniel Pipes.

[remedios]

I have studied it and it's not a position that is likely to change.

I seriously doubt your ability to study anything. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of seeking out sufficiently diverse sources to obtain an impartial view, and have also demonstrated a will to ignorance. Have you ever actually read ANYTHING that purports to be pro-palestinian? If not, why not? Oh yeah, I forgot, most likely you get your info from cNBC, CNN, and the NYTimes.

Moving on, can you honestly sit there and tell me that Palestine (with her crippled infrastructure) is supposed to get rid of the terrorists when Israel can't? And Israel perpetuates this situation by breaking the arms of any Palestinian group that might actually be effective at peace, as well as encouraging settlers to behave in ways that do nothing but illicit violence. Israel baits the Palestinians. She deserves everything she gets, including bloodied children. Why should I care about them when Israel cares more about land?

[MO]

Why don't you knock off your personal attacks and stick to the issues! It's a great big www out there. No one is forcing you to converse with people you obviously believe are intellectually inferior to you.

Why are liberals so pompous and condescending?

hmm?

[remedios]

My attitude stems more from my scientific background than my political one. You offered an opinion and I responded to it. I would be more than interested in having an expanded discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian situation and you seemed as though you were about to launch one. But then again, I should have known better. All you're interested in is making comments and then ending the discussion as soon as someone disagrees with you. I started out by asking a very respectful question and you have yet to give a reasonable answer to it. I'll ask it again and see what you do now: Why haven't you included sources from the other side of the situation in your evaluation, or even sources that can claim impartiality? Daniel Pipes hardly qualifies, as he writes for the Jerusalem Post. Why not find an Israeli Jew who sympathizes with the Palestinians, or Arab and American-Israeli scholars who do the same? Even if you end up thinking they are a bunch of commie-loving peaceniks, at least you could actually claim to have done good research. If you don't even bother to conduct a thorough investigation of BOTH sides, condescension is all you deserve and all that you'll get from me, or anyone else who is accustomed to using their head.

Look pal- You don't know what I have read! I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. DROP IT! In order to have a debate, there must be some starting point in which we agree. -Mo