  |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Palestinians’ Hard Choice: An Interview With Sari NusseibehPosted on May 3, 2007
By Jon Wiener Sari Nusseibeh [right], a leading Palestinian intellectual and political figure, is a long-time advocate of a two-state solution and was the PLO’s chief representative in Jerusalem in 2001 and 2002. He is now president of Al Quds University, the only Arab university in Jerusalem. His memoir, “Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life,” was published in April by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. I spoke with Nusseibeh April 30 in Los Angeles. Jon Wiener: What did the 2006 July War in Lebanon look like to you in Jerusalem? Sari Nusseibeh: It was totally crazy, an example of how wars can sometimes be totally useless. In that war, the stated objective was to recover two Israeli soldiers who had been kidnapped by the other side, and today those two soldiers are still in custody. The entire Lebanese people paid a very high price in the destruction and devastation of their country and their capital, and for nothing. Wiener: The Israelis did not win this war. Would you say Hezbollah won the war? Nusseibeh: Hezbollah does say it won the war, but I would say both sides lost. Because you have to look not only at the political party or leadership that’s carrying out the war; you have to look beyond that at the country itself and the people themselves. And if you look at the people of Lebanon, I believe the war has pushed them back generations. Destroyed their lives and livelihoods, their infrastructure. I think it’s a war where two sides have lost. Wiener: What effect did the July War have on Palestinians? I’ve heard that the most popular figure among Palestinians is the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah. Is that true? Nusseibeh: At the time the war was on, that was true. Every time he came out on the TV screens he was always smiling and talking gently and always escaping the attempts by the Israeli army to take him out. Every time the Israelis said they had managed to kill him, he would appear a day or two later. So he really captured the hearts of the Palestinians and perhaps of the Arabs more generally—as a beaten people, as a people who have been constantly beaten in wars. He personified for them the ability to stand up to Israeli military might. But perhaps since then things have changed. Wiener: The Israelis say “our soldiers were kidnapped by terrorists who crossed a recognized international boundary, 3,000 rockets were fired at our civilians, hundreds of thousands of our civilians were driven from their homes into shelters, what were we supposed to do? Of course we had to respond.” Nusseibeh: You are describing events during the war, but those have to be separated from what happened at the beginning. What happened at the beginning was two Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner by Hezbollah. The very first step was Israel’s insistence that it should go to war to retrieve the two prisoners. That was the first mistake. Then other mistakes followed. Clearly they were not prepared for and did not expect such intensive opposition and resistance from the other side. It was totally unexpected. Wiener: Some analysts say we have to see that war as a proxy war between the U.S. and Iran. Do you agree? Nusseibeh: It was a proxy war between people who take positions very hastily and think they can quickly destroy the other side, not giving any respect for how strong they might be. Wiener: Your book “Once Upon a Country” ends with the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council in early 2006, that shocking moment when Hamas won a lot more seats than Fatah. The Israeli right argued that this election proved peace with the Palestinians was impossible. What’s your understanding of the outcome of those elections? Nusseibeh: That argument is very far from reality, in my opinion. We know for example that these elections took place a year after the presidential elections following the death of Arafat. In those elections, Abu Mazen was elected by a majority of the Palestinians. Everybody, including the Palestinians, assumed that this vote was a vote for peace. Abu Mazen, even in the time of Arafat, was the man of peace, the man who embodied the Oslo process. But a whole year passed with Abu Mazen as president when the people who elected him did not see any tangible progress towards peace. So there was a lot of frustration. That’s the first point you need to understand. Second is that when the elections were finally held and Hamas won, there was a problem with the people in Fatah who did not get together. They did not run as a single party. That wasted votes. That was another reason why Hamas won. If you added up the votes of all the different Fatah people who ran, I think you would find Hamas did not win a majority, Wiener: If we are listing the missed opportunities, certainly the Israeli failure following death of Arafat was one. There is also the Israeli pullout from Gaza. It seemed at one point that that might be the prelude to a broad pullout from the West Bank. That didn’t happen. The Israelis blamed the Palestinian Authority for failing to disarm terrorist groups in Gaza, which has remained a base for attacks on southern Israel. What went wrong with the Gaza pullout? Nusseibeh: We have to go back to the beginning—and look not just at what happened after the Israeli pullout. At the time, [Ariel] Sharon himself argued that this unilateral pullout was a step toward ending the occupation throughout the territories. But Palestinians argued at the time that the unilateral nature of this pullout would enable some groups to claim that the Israelis were leaving only because of the rockets and the fighting on the Hamas side. What was required at the time was a mutual agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As soon as the Israelis withdrew, the Hamas people in Gaza declared military victory, the same way Hezbollah declared military victory when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. They said “we pushed them out with our guns, and this shows we should go on fighting on the West Bank.” What happened was the growing strength for the military wing in Gaza, leading to the situation we find today. The moral, I believe, is that any step toward peace in the region must be mutual, must be reciprocal, must be agreed upon by the two sides. You cannot make peace unilaterally, the way you can make war unilaterally. You can only make peace bilaterally. Wiener: In your book “Once Upon a Country” your account of the 1948 war is different from the prevailing history in Israel and the U.S. Our understanding here is that six Arab armies attacked the new state of Israel after it declared independence in 1948. The neighboring Arab states rejected a U.N. partition plan that would have created a Palestinian state alongside Israel. You don’t mention this invasion in your book. Nusseibeh: The fact is that these armies attacked. The question is, what was the reason? Why did they attack? Was it that they attacked because they rejected the partition plan, or because some or most of them wanted to grab as much territory as possible, given the fact of the partition plan? One Israeli historian, Benny Morris, claims that the Arab armies went in mostly in a land grab, to get as much land for themselves as possible. I’m not sure, but it seems that people assumed Israel was going to have part of this land, and the question on the part of the Arab governments was whether this land was going to be given to the Palestinians to establish their own state, or whether we should step in and appropriate the land for ourselves. This was primarily the motivation for their entry into the country at that time. Certainly the Palestinians rejected the partition plan. There is no doubt that they were very angry at the partition plan and did not wish for Israel to be created at the time. It took them a long time until they came around to seeing that they had to accept this partition plan, and that perhaps the future can be better for themselves if a peace is worked out with the Israelis. Wiener: The biggest obstacle in any peace settlement, according to the Israelis, is the Palestinian claim of a right of return. In 1948 your mother’s family was expelled from land that had been theirs for generations. What do you tell your Palestinian comrades about the right of return? Nusseibeh: This is the most painful part of a compromise that has to be made between Israelis and Palestinians. We have to think not only of the past but also of the future. I’ve been accused of arguing that we don’t have a right of return. That is false. I think we have a right of return. But we have other rights as well. We have a right to freedom. We have a right to independence. We have a right to create a new future. And very often in life the implementation of one right conflicts with the ability to implement another. You have to make a choice. In this case, I’ve been arguing with my peers, my colleagues, my people, that we must choose, and that, morally speaking, the best choice is to opt for the right to freedom, the right to independence, and the right to a new future. Wiener: You were an important figure in the first intifada, 1987-1991, which relied on massive civil disobedience. The second intifada began in 2000 after Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount—that is the intifada of the suicide bombers. How do you explain the difference between the two? Nusseibeh: The first intifada was an explosion of frustration. The challenge at the time was, can we turn this explosion into something with a political objective? There were three elements that helped into making that explosion into a political act. One was the existence of leadership. We had that—it was called the Unified Leadership of the Uprising. Second, it had a vision—the vision was, we want to lead all of this movement toward negotiations with Israel to create a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Third, that intifada also had a day-by-day, month-by-month strategy to bring us to that conclusion. That strategy was primarily civil disobedience, and that is primarily how I was involved in the intifada. We succeeded in the sense that we finally were able to bring the two peoples closer to realizing that two-state solution was the only feasible solution, and indeed we got negotiations between the two parties. With this latter explosion of violence, which began in 2000, I refuse to call this an intifada, because it had neither a leadership, nor a vision, nor a plan. It was simply—in my opinion—a crazy expression of frustration and anger, totally useless, chaotic and certainly counterproductive, involving acts of violence and of terrorism that only brought ruin to the Palestinian people and to our achievements. Wiener: Does the recent electoral success of Hamas make you worried that you might have to live in an Islamic fundamentalist state? What do you see as the future of Islamic fundamentalism among the Palestinians? Nusseibeh: There are two parts to this question. The first part concerns what kind of state I would wish to live in. When I have resisted occupation, calling for an independent Palestinian state, I really need a state that will respect my rights as an individual. Will respect my freedoms, will be a lawful state where there’s equality, freedom of opinion. I do not believe a rigid Islamic fundamentalist state would provide me with this, so it’s not the state that I have fought for, and certainly not the one I would want to live in. But behind the fundamentalism, behind Hamas and its ideology, are the people, and it’s easy to reach out to the people. You can never change the ideology itself. The question is how big or small it is going to be in the general landscape. I think it can be limited by reaching out to people, providing them with hope, with progress, with the ability to provide a better life for themselves and their families in the future.
Previous item: Time to Crack Down on the Student Loan Cesspool Next item: From the Mind of the 'Commander Guy' Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Taiwan Declares Peace on China
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Robert, June 22, 2007 at 9:47 pm #
STATISTICS:
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation.
It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power – and duty – to bring a resolution.
Below are charts of nine little-known statistics.
Please click on any statistic for the source and more information.
Statistics Last Updated: June 14, 2007
Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed Since September 29, 2000
118 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 943 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Source)
Israelis and Palestinians Killed Since September 29, 2000
1,023 Israelis and at least 4,160 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Source)
Israelis and Palestinians Injured Since September 29, 2000
7,633 Israelis and 31,403 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Source)
Daily U.S. Aid to Israel and the Palestinians
The U.S. gives more than $7,023,288 per day to the Israeli government and military and gives no money to the Palestinians. (View Source)
UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians
Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none. (View Source)
Political Prisoners and Detainees
1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Source)
Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes
0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000. (View Source)
Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates
The Israeli unemployment rate is 9%, while the Palestinian unemployment is estimated at 40%. (View Source)
Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land
Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Source)”
------------------------------------------------
Here is the link the numbers, charts, sources...etc...:
http://www.ifamericansknew.com
Report thisBy Lefty, June 19, 2007 at 8:20 pm #
Re: #78858 by Tony Wicher on 6/17 at 9:27 pm
(116 comments total)
Re #78650 by jason on 6/16 at 7:50 pm
Jason,
I would have to say the Zionists (Israel) started the war because they came from somewhere else and conquered what was then Palestine, where many people had lived for hundreds of years. These people, who were of all different religions, are
Report thiscalled “Palestinians”. They said they had that right because Jews used to live there two thousand years ago. They took these people’s land, killed many of them and burned their villages. These people and their descendants are today living in refugee camps under Israeli military occupation; they are not citizens of any country, and they have no rights. This is not fair.
=====================================================
Another extra crispy bucket of WRONG for Tony the Phony.
By Tony Wicher, June 17, 2007 at 9:27 pm #
Re #78650 by jason on 6/16 at 7:50 pm
Jason,
I would have to say the Zionists (Israel) started the war because they came from somewhere else and conquered what was then Palestine, where many people had lived for hundreds of years. These people, who were of all different religions, are
Report thiscalled “Palestinians”. They said they had that right because Jews used to live there two thousand years ago. They took these people’s land, killed many of them and burned their villages. These people and their descendants are today living in refugee camps under Israeli military occupation; they are not citizens of any country, and they have no rights. This is not fair.
By jason, June 16, 2007 at 7:50 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
hey im just wondering over here who started the war my school is starting this whole new love about this case and i just want to know who started the war?
Report thisBy Robert, June 4, 2007 at 5:34 pm #
Comment #75301 by Peter RV:
PRV...Its time to move to the new report on “truthdig”.
Featured Report:
“Looking Back at 40 Years of Occupation”
By Chris Hedges
Guess who is over there on the forum with...zionism’s “carpet bombing”?
Its our familiar “zionist gang”..."ill-lie-mamzie", ITW, and “lefty=ephraim pesach” at large.
See ya over there & lets convey the TRUTH !
Report thisBy Peter RV, June 4, 2007 at 2:19 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ref.#75142 by Robert
Report thisRobert,
Lefty and Co are in a state of extreme exaltation, because they are not accustomed to assist to a discussion they can’t control by their heckling. It is not that they don’t know there is an opposite opinion, on the contrary, their problem is to prevent those from being expressed loudly that others may hear it.
(Just look what is happening, at large,in our sorry U.S.A.)
These are goons who have learnt history from some rabbis, who have also tought them that Palestinians are dogs and should be treated as such.
Lately, we have an overflow of their carefully studied cliches with an obvious aim to “carpet bomb” us out of existance. Difficult business to do on the Internet- but they keep trying.
Hence their increasingly rabid attitude.
It is unimaginable to them to ask themselves, for exemple, why Ilon Pappe could live among Palestinians but among Israelis- he cannot! (ditto for Norman Finkelstein).
Or, another unimaginable question.
Arab Ligue has offered Israel full recognition and normalization of relations with all Arab States. The plan has been on the table for more than a year now.
What is Israel’s response? Silence. Why?
Well, there is an answer to that and it comes from the mouth of a brilliant Israeli journalist- Uri Avnery. He states that it has been an Israeli time honored strategy to derail any chance for peace by simply letting it die, burried under the rubble produced by subsequent staged provocations and incidents.
Israelis, obviously, have concluded they can’t survive the Peace.
By Robert, June 4, 2007 at 12:48 pm #
Peter RV, Ernest Canning, Tony Wicher, Fadel Abdallah & others:
“Lefty=ephraim pesach” has failed to introduce you all to his “zionist Israeli” team who are responsible for his favorite “zionist website” http://www.honestreporting.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MEET THE TEAM:
-EPHRAIM SHORE (PRESIDENT) - IMMIGRATED TO ISRAEL 1998.
-JOE HYAMS (CEO)- MEDIA RESOURCE JERUSALEM.
-GARY KENZER (NATIONAL USA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)- TRAVELS TO ISRAEL MANY TIMES.
-SIMON PLOSKER (MANAGING EDITOR)- IMMIGRATED TO ISRAEL 2001.
-YARDEN FRANKL (SENIOR EDITOR)- STRATEGIC AFFAIRS LOBBYIST FOR “AIPAC”.
-SUZANNE HAVIVI (MISSIONS DIRECTOR)- IMMIGRATED TO ISRAEL 1990.
-PESACH BENSON (RESEARCHER, EDITOR OF BACKSPIN {THE HONESTREPORTING BLOG}, MOVED TO ISRAEL IN 1995.
So there they are. Just click on this zionist website, then click on ‘contact us’, then ‘Meet the Team’.
ITS GETTING DEEP...LEFTY-EPHRAIM...YOU ARE STILL PLOPPING THAT GREEN UPON GREEN STUFF...OF YOUR ZIONIST’S TEAM ‘special report’ malarky.
ITS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY...BUT ITS TIME TO FACE THE TRUTH. YOUR ZIONISM’S INFECTION HAS IMPACTED YOU SO BADLY. WE TRIED TO HELP YOU OUT, BUT YOU CAN’T EVEN HELP YOURSELF.
ZIONISM & IDF LIES UPON LIES...ARE FINALLY GETTING EXPOSED. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SLOWLY LEARNING THE TRUTH ABOUT WHO ARE THE “BAD GUYS” AND THEIR TRAILS OF KILLING MACHINES & STATE TERROR. ITS ISRAEL & ITS BRUTAL IDF!
HAPPY TRAILS...WATCH OUT FOR THE REINS!
Report thisBy Lefty, June 4, 2007 at 8:10 am #
THE SIX DAY WAR - 40 YEARS LATER, CONTINUED
Forty Years On
Forty years after a war of survival left it in control of disputed territories, Israel continues to seek a negotiated peace with both the Palestinians and the Arab world.
Israel had every legal and moral right to defend herself in 1967 and has legitimate rights within the territory that is under her control today. If you see a media report that misrepresents the events of 1967, use this primer and the following links to respond to media bias:
The Jewish Virtual Library
Palestine Facts
Camera’s Six Day War Website
http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk
British Israel Communications and Research Center (BICOM)
HonestReporting. com
Click here to comment on this special report.
Thank you for your involvement in responding
Report thisto media bias.
To support our work, donate here today.
By Lefty, June 4, 2007 at 8:10 am #
THE SIX DAY WAR - 40 YEARS LATER, CONTINUED
4) United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
After the war, there were many opinions as to what a peace agreement should require of the parties. The view of the Soviet Union and Arab bloc was that Israel should be forced to withdraw from all lands taken in the war. However, this view did not prevail in the United Nations.
According to the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise:
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for “termination of all claims or states of belligerency” and the recognition that “every State in the area” has the “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”
The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from “all the” territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant “that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands.” The Arab states pushed for the word “all” to be included, but this was rejected. The Arab League then rejected the entire resolution. Nonetheless, it was approved by the Security Council.
The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from “territories occupied” in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Israel withdrew from 95% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai and then Gaza. It has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.
In addition, the Arab reaction to the resolution was not to make peace but instead the “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Conference of August 1967:
No peace with Israel
No recognition of Israel
No negotiation with Israel
Forty Years of Suffering?
Since launching a terror war in 2000, Palestinian living standards have undoubtedly declined as the Palestinian leadership adopted violence ahead of nation building and investing in civil society. Contrary to some claims in the media, “occupation” is not the primary reason for the current plight of the Palestinians. As Dr Mitchell Bard, Director of the Jewish Virtual Library points out:
When Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, officials took measures to improve the conditions that Palestinians had lived under during Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the West Bank, and Egypt’s occupation of Gaza. Universities were opened, Israeli agricultural innovations were shared, modern conveniences were introduced, and health care was significantly upgraded. More than 100,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel, and were paid the same wages as Israeli workers, which stimulated economic growth.
Despite the collapse of the PA economy from the last five years of war, Palestinian Arabs are still better off than many of their neighbors. The most recent Human Development Report from the United Nations ranked the PA 102nd in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment and adjusted real income out of the 177 countries and territories in the world, placing it in the “medium human development” category along with most of the other Middle Eastern states (only the Gulf sheikdoms are ranked “high"). The PA was ranked just 12 places below Jordan and one behind Iran; it was rated ahead of Syria (#105), Algeria (#108), Egypt (#120), and Morocco (#125).
Report thisBy Lefty, June 4, 2007 at 8:08 am #
THE SIX DAY WAR - 40 YEARS LATER, CONTINUED
Only after coming under fire and sustaining casualties did the Israeli military respond, resulting in the re-unification of Jerusalem and control of the entire West Bank. The record is clear, this acquisition of land was the direct result of Jordanian, not Israeli military aggression.
One week later, having successfully defended herself, Israel was in control of the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights.
The Legal Status of Land Taken in 1967
1) Israel’s Legitimate Claims:
Some parts of the West Bank would have been part of Israel as defined by the UN Partition Plan, but were overrun in 1948. There were Jewish communities such as Kfar Etzion, not to mention the Old City of Jerusalem, that fell in the fighting of 1948. Jews were either killed or expelled from these areas conquered by invading Arab armies.
The League of Nations Mandate explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement in all territory allocated to the Jewish national home in the context of the British Mandate. The British Mandate covered the area that is currently Israel, all the disputed territories (and even what is now Jordan). These rights under the British Mandate were preserved by the United Nations, under Article 49 of the UN Charter.
2) Defensive War:
Military control of the West Bank was clearly the result of a defensive war. According to Dr. Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:
International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel’s case: “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.”
3) Forced Transfer of Civilian Populations:
There are mistaken claims that Israel’s control of these territories violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Fourth Geneva Convention was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It outlaws the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control, specifically “individual or mass forcible transfers.”
The only forced mass transfers were against Jewish communities in 1948. After the Six Day War, Israel did not expel a single Arab community from land it now controlled.
The “Occupying Power” may also not “deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population” to territories taken in conflict. Israel has never forced Jews to move to the territories. However, there is no obligation for Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population.
Report thisBy Lefty, June 4, 2007 at 8:06 am #
THE SIX DAY WAR - 40 YEARS LATER, CONTINUED
Israel’s Arab neighbors unquestionably made clear their intentions to attack Israel. Their stated goal had nothing to do with a border dispute, but rather the destruction of the State of Israel. Yet, Israel’s response was always the same: A simple desire to live in peace.
Prior to the war Israel was the victim of numerous terrorist attacks launched from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. Continuous Syrian shelling from the Golan Heights on to Israeli towns and villages further highlighted Arab intentions. (For more details on these military and terrorist attacks against Israel, see resources appearing at the end of this report.)
All along the 1948 armistice lines, Arab armies engaged in an enormous military build-up. Egypt ordered United Nations peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai to leave. Shortly before the start of the war, Israel was confronted by an Arab force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. The armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were also contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.
Israel is Attacked and Captures Territory
Egypt Initiates War With Israel: Israel Captures Sinai and Gaza
Egypt chose to further escalate hostilities. The narrow Straits of Tiran were closed to Israeli shipping creating a naval blockade, preventing Israeli ships from reaching the port of Eilat - in violation of international law and an act of war.
The United States was clear in its policy. According to U.S. President Johnson:
If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations.
Faced with potential annihilation, Israel chose to launch a pre-emptive strike, destroying the Egyptian and Syrian air forces while still on the ground.
Syria Initiates War With Israel: Israel Captures the Golan Heights
From the start of the war, Syria took part in the fighting with planes and artillery, continuously shelling Israeli villages near the border and attacking some of them with infantry and armour. There were no serious Israeli counter attacks until 9 June, when the Israel Defense Forces, now freed from other fronts, attacked the Syrian army entrenched on the Golan Heights. In fierce fighting, they stormed the Heights and occupied the town of Kuneitra on the afternoon of June 10.
Jordan Initiates War With Israel: Israel Captures Jerusalem and the West Bank
Despite the many terrorist attacks that had emanated from the Jordanian-occupied West Bank, Israel specifically told King Hussein that Jordan would not be attacked unless Jordan chose to enter the war. As the fighting raged, Prime Minister Levy Eshkol sent the following message to King Hussein of Jordan:
We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might.
However, upon receiving information (later proving false) that Israel was being defeated, King Hussein ordered that Israel be attacked. On June 5:
civilian suburbs of Tel-Aviv were shelled by artillery;
Israel’s largest military airfield, Ramat David, was shelled;
Jordanian warplanes attacked the central Israeli towns of Netanya and Kfar Saba;
thousands of mortar shells rained down on West Jerusalem hitting civilian locations indiscriminately, including the Hadassah Hospital and the Mount Zion Church;
Israel’s parliament building (the Knesset) and the Prime Minister’s office, each in Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem, were targeted;
20 Israelis died in these attacks; 1000 were wounded. 900 buildings in West Jerusalem were damaged.
Report thisBy Lefty, June 4, 2007 at 8:05 am #
REMEMBER THE 6 DAY WAR 40 YEARS LATER!
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/criti ques/The_Six_Day_War_Forty_Years_On.asp
Forty years have now passed since the “Six Day War” which resulted in Israeli control over the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Some media reports already refer to the fortieth anniversary of the “occupation.”
The goal of this special report is to remind HonestReporting subscribers of the events of 1967 and Israel’s administration of the disputed territories. We ask that you PRINT OUT AND PASS ON this special report to help you respond to some of the bias and misconceptions that will inevitably flood the international media over the coming weeks.
How Did the War Begin?
While June 5 marks the day that Israel initiated its military operation, it is important to note that the immediate Arab threats to wipe out Israel began in the preceding months. It is also critical to take the causes of the Six Day War into account before analyzing the resulting status of land taken as a result. International Law makes a clear distinction between land “occupied” during a war of aggression and land taken as a result of a defensive war.
This distinction explains why so many enemies of Israel are using this anniversary to rewritehistory and falsely claim that the Six Day War was initiated by Israel in order to illegally capture land.
Who Initiated Hostilities?
Egypt and Syria Demand War:
“We aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.”
Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1965
“Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to begin a battle of annihilation.”
Syria’s Defense Minister Hafez Assad (later to be Syria’s President)
Israel Reaches Out for Peace:
“Even as the cannons roar we shall not cease from longing for peace. Our only desire is to remove from our borders any threat of sabotage and every danger of aggression, to safeguard our security and the fullness of our rights.”
Israeli Prime Minister Levy Eshkol, June 5, 1967
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Report thisBy Robert, June 3, 2007 at 8:06 pm #
Comment #75037 by Peter RV:
PRV...Notice how our friendly zionist “lefty=ephraim pesach” , a “history compentent buff...Hmm?” , just does NOT even come close to Ilan Pappe’s history record / narrative on Palestine & the Palestinian people.
This “idiot” just seems to have herniated from all of his remaining orafices. What a damn shame...ephraim!
The repeated lies & zionist propaganda “bait” just did NOT work & no body was biting...your on-going green manure narrative piles on this & previous forums JUST DIDN’T WORK FOR YOUR DECEPTIVE GOALS!
Why doesn’t “lefty=ephraim pesach” try to convince us that he has more knowledge & or more qualifications on the topic(s) of history than Ilan Pappe?
Hey...ephraim...its time to tuck that tail closely to your ventral cavity & put and end to your green manure piles. Your stall is getting piled up & your space is collapsing on you.
YOUR GREEN MANURE PILES ARE GETTING TOO DEEP FOR MOVEMENT...YOU ARE GETTING SHACKLED BY YOUR OWN REINS !
You keep exposing yourself everyday...ephraim. Don’t you have any shame & integrity? Don’t you have any self-respect? Are you capable of telling the TRUTH? Don’t you feel guilty that you have let your family & friends down with your massive lies? Are you capable of being rational?
Ilan Pappe has integrity. He has a PhD & he knows what he is talking about. The TRUTH matters to this educated person!
We all can see your stupid attempts to sidetrack the discussion of this forum. You think that you are clever & cute...eh!
When it rains, it just pours...ephraim! Your IDF/Israeli methods of lying just don’t work here.
The people on this forum know your kind very well.
LIES, LIES, LIES...DECEPTIONS...ARE YOUR WAYS OF LIFE!
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 8:04 pm #
#75119 by Lefty on 6/03 at 6:33 pm
(170 comments total)
#75119 by Lefty on 6/03 at 6:33 pm
(170 comments total)
“In the mean time, Tony Wicher thinks that Israel should voluntarily merge itself with Arab nutbags like these who threaten to slit Arab news women’s throats for failing to wear prehistoric “Islamic” garb”
Lefty,
Why must you tar all Palestinians with the same brush? I don’t want Israel to merge with any Arab nutbags, but it might consider merging with that Palestinian newslady they were threatening, and she might consider merging with it, if it offered her freedom and dignity instead of treating her like a dog. Which would be a good thing for all concerned.
Report thisBy Lefty, June 3, 2007 at 6:33 pm #
In the mean time, Tony Wicher thinks that Israel should voluntarily merge itself with Arab nutbags like these who threaten to slit Arab news women’s throats for failing to wear prehistoric “Islamic” garb:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/11467.htm
“The “Swords of Truth”, an Islamist vice squad responsible for bombing more than three dozen internet cafes, music shops, pool halls and restaurants in Gaza in the last year, has now turned its repressive eye on female TV broadcasters.”
“In a statement e-mailed to worldwide media Friday, the group threatened to slit the throats of female TV broadcasters in the Palestinian Authority who do not dress in strict accordance with religious Islamic standards.”
“We will cut throats, and from vein to vein, if needed to protect the spirit and moral of this nation,” said the statement, which called the offending broadcasters “without any ... shame or morals.”
Throughout the Muslim world, conservative policies keep women out of TV anchor positions or dictate they wear head scarves on air. Head scarves for TV broadcasters are uncommon, however, in Lebanon and Jordan. Egypt does not allow headscarfed TV newscasters on its TV stations.
Most of the 15 female broadcasters on government-run Palestine TV wear head scarves. But they also wear makeup and Western clothing—not considered strictly observant by extremists.
Female broadcasters who were interviewed by the Associated Press said they had received death threats in calls. Many were frightened.
One PA anchorwoman, who does not wear a headscarf, said anonymously that she did not go to work on Saturday as a result. “It’s a dangerous precedent in our society,” she said. “It will target all working women.”
Report thisBy Peter RV, June 3, 2007 at 4:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
My comment #75037 seems to have been mutilated by someone
Report thisBy cann4ing, June 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm #
Re multiple Tony Wicher posts re Dr. Pappe. I don’t think one can criticize Dr. Pappe’s accurate historical assessment. He is correct in describing the concept of a “safe shore” as one of the original motivatng factors, one which was given a major post-War impetus in the wake of the Holocaust.
One of the problem I have is his description of a second motivating factor--the desire to create “a Jewish, ethnically pure, democracy” within the boundaries of an already existing Palestine where Jews were a distinct minority. A system that requires “ethnic purity,” be it Israeli apartheid or the originally founded U.S. in which each African-American slave counted as 3/5 in the U.S. census but otherwise had no civil rights whatsoever, cannot truly be considered a “democracy.” The phrase “ethnically pure democracy” is an oxymoron.
With respect to a two-state solution, Dr. Pappe’s description of the manner in which the Israeli regime utilized it as a means to cover the “facts on the ground” entailing a ceaseless, brutal expansion into and occupation of Palestinian territories through the erection of Israeli settlements, the wall and all that followed is accurate. However, the two-state solution envisioned by individuals like President Carter would be one in which Israel would be required to comply with UN Resolution 242, withrawing all settlements to Israel’s pre-1967 war boundaries, thereby creating a viable Palestinian state.
While I agree with Dr. Pappe that an ideal and truly democratic resolution would include all Palestinians in the diaspora, I don’t think it is a realistic one given political realities. The two-state solution proposed by President Carter, on the other hand, could be a workable solution if, and only if, the U.S. electorate one day awakened from their AIPAC-induced slumber.
Report thisBy Robert, June 3, 2007 at 12:17 pm #
Comment 374948 by Tony Wicher on 6:03 am
Tony,
A great article by Ilan Pappe, a well known Israeli historian who received his D. Phil. from Oxford, on the history of Palestine & zionism. Pappe’s history details of Palestine & its people confirms what we have been commenting, for the most part, on this and other forums.
I would NOT be too surprised if our friendly zionist pals on this forum… if they would try to attack Pappe’s scholarly record on history, and especially Palestine’s history.
Hey..."lefty=ephraim pesach”...here is your chance to tell Dr. Ilan Pappe about your zionist lies & propaganda. There is your chance to show your “stuff?”! May be you might think that you are more qualified on the subject of HISTORY than Dr. Pappe?
***************************************************
Here something that might be of interest to your scheme of things:
“Israeli Women Fight Back-Of-Bus Status”
By Brenda Gazzar 05/13/2007
“Five women in Israel are going to court to protest the way sex-segregated public buses are run in Israel. The arrangement serves the beliefs of ultra-Orthodox passengers but the women say it discriminates against other riders.”
Men in Front of bus. Women in Back of bus!
http://www.womenenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3167/con text/cover/
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
Re #75020 by Lefty on 6/03 at 10:39 am
(167 comments total)
“These are the Arab psychopaths that Tony Wicher thinks that Israel should welcome with open arms, to live in peace, harmony and tranquility, for ever and ever.
Maybe, in another 50,000 years, when they have evolved into humans.”
Lefty,
Thanks for this unabashed expression of out-and-out racism. But what is racism? Anybody can be a racist, and anybody can open his eyes and cease being a racist. Anybody’s thinking can be twisted by an image, a label, a stereotype. PRV suggested that a particular extremist Rabbi was representative of Israel Jews in general, to which IHW indignantly retorted that this man and his statements did not represent Israeli Jews. Now you are doing the same thing with some extremist Arabs, generalizing to all Palestinians. They don’t represent the Palestinian people either.
Report thisBy Peter RV, June 3, 2007 at 11:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ref.#74950 by Tony Wicher,
Ref.#74920 by Robert and
Ref.#74896 by Inherit the Wind,
Until very recently the Zionist propaganda was carping on the fact that The Grand Mufty of Jerusalem went to Hitler’s Germany to help the Arab cause with the Nazies. A video even showed the Moofty patting the cheeks of young Bosnian Muslim SS-troopers in Sarayevo in a military review ( incidentaly, the SS-division was called “the Handjar"- the Dagger, which was sowing the terror in the Balkans until sent to Russia where it was finally
anihilated). So far so true, but this was incessantly used by the Zionists to justify the dispossession of Palestinians of their property and land.
How many Palestinians agreed with this Grand Mufty
we will never know because the statistics at that time were practically non-existant. That was some sixty years ago. Palestinians remained, according to the Zionists, collectively “guilty as charged”.
Nowadays we have Grand Rabbis suggesting, in their infinite mercy, that we should carpet-bomb the sinful Palestinians to the oblivion, for their collective responsability to stop some crude fire-work rockets reaching Israel from Gaza. And we are asked immediately to accept that all Israeli do not share the opinion of this Grand Rabbi, in spite of the fact that every surway in Israel indicate a lobsided majority in favour of treating Arabs in a most harsh manner.
Well, what Noam Chomsky said, the Justice is either Universal or it is a complete Farce.
The most popular politician in Israel is now Benyamin Nathaniahu. Yes, the same “Clean Break” pinnup boy of PNAC.
Now , everybody knows that Palestinians are in the state of a most complete medieval siege. They are not allowed to come out of Gaza or WestBank, they are not even allowed to fish in the sea. On top of that our great humanitarian U.S. has exerted a pression on the European Union to blokade all funds to the Palestinians because they have elected democratically a Government not to Israel’s liking.
Palestinians are practically starving, the International Red Cross affirms it.
Do you know what Nathaniahu, the most likely next Israeli Prime Minister, proposes?
Well, to cut off the remaining water and electricity supply to Gaza!
Do we hear a massive protest from Israeli citizens, to this beastly thought? Do we, perish the thought,
imply that a carpet bombing should be applied also somewhere else for a collective guilt?
Now
Report thisBy Lefty, June 3, 2007 at 10:39 am #
These are the Arab psychopaths that Tony Wicher thinks that Israel should welcome with open arms, to live in peace, harmony and tranquility, for ever and ever.
Maybe, in another 50,000 years, when they have evolved into humans.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/11467.htm
“The “Swords of Truth”, an Islamist vice squad responsible for bombing more than three dozen internet cafes, music shops, pool halls and restaurants in Gaza in the last year, has now turned its repressive eye on female TV broadcasters.”
“In a statement e-mailed to worldwide media Friday, the group threatened to slit the throats of female TV broadcasters in the Palestinian Authority who do not dress in strict accordance with religious Islamic standards.”
“We will cut throats, and from vein to vein, if needed to protect the spirit and moral of this nation,” said the statement, which called the offending broadcasters “without any ... shame or morals.”
Throughout the Muslim world, conservative policies keep women out of TV anchor positions or dictate they wear head scarves on air. Head scarves for TV broadcasters are uncommon, however, in Lebanon and Jordan. Egypt does not allow headscarfed TV newscasters on its TV stations.
Most of the 15 female broadcasters on government-run Palestine TV wear head scarves. But they also wear makeup and Western clothing—not considered strictly observant by extremists.
Female broadcasters who were interviewed by the Associated Press said they had received death threats in calls. Many were frightened.
One PA anchorwoman, who does not wear a headscarf, said anonymously that she did not go to work on Saturday as a result. “It’s a dangerous precedent in our society,” she said. “It will target all working women.”
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 2:01 am #
Sorry, guys - I got the Pappe article posting out of sequence.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 1:51 am #
Following is an article by llan Pappe in Tikkun
Zionism was born out of two logical and justified impulses. The first was the desire to find a safe shore for the Jews of East and Central Europe, after decades of anti-semitic persecutions - and possibly also a premonition that there was worse to come. The second impulse was to redefine the Jewish religion as a national movement, under the influence of “The Spring of the Peoples” in the mid 19th Century.
When the leaders of the movement decided, for reasons which cannot be detailed here, that the only territory where these two impulses can be fulfilled is Palestine, where nearly a million people already lived - this movement turned into a colonial project, which got its definite form after the First World War. Despite a wide Imperial umbrella - in the form of the British Mandate - as a colonial project it was not a success story. The settlers succeeded to take over a bare six percent of the Palestinian homeland, and to constitute only a third of the country’s population.
The tragedy of the indigenous Palestinian population was not only their being the victims of a colonial movement - but specifically being the victim of a colonial movement which sought to create a democratic movement. In face of the clear Palestinian demographic majority, eleven leaders of Zionism did not hesitate in March 1948 to resolve upon ethnic cleansing, as the best means - considering the failures of Zionist colonialism - to create a Jewish, ethnically pure, democracy over most of Palestine’s territory.
Within less than a year after the historic decision was taken, the ethnic cleansing was carried out - which nowadays the international community would not have hesitated to call a crime against humanity. Systematically, from village to village and from city to city, the Jewish forces passed and cleansed the country of its indigenous population. They left destruction and ruin in their wake: more than five hundred ruined villages, and eleven towns. Half of Palestine’s towns and villages were forcibly emptied and half of the counry’s population (eighty percent of the population of what became the Jewish state) were uprooted from their homes, fields and livelihoods. This crime was retroactively approved by the International Community and remained a legitimized means in the hands of the Jewish state, then as well as now, to ensure the existence of a Jewish democracy on the country’s soil. The achievement and maintenance of a demographic majority became a sacred goal, and it became also the basis for the two-state solution to the conflict. The International Community, as well as the Israeli peace camp, sought to limit the territory where ethnic cleansing and the Jewish purity would prevail. The Zionist minotaur demanded - and by force, gained - a full eighty percent of Palestine. But that was not enough: when the historic opportunity arrived to satisfy not only demographic hunger but also territorial greediness, it in 1967 swallowed the whole of Palestine’s land.
However, even when the whole country was swallowed, official Israel attempted to preserve also the idea of Zionist democracy. That is how such formulas were born as “Territory in exchange for Peace” and “Two States for Two Peoples”. These were not recipes for peace or justice to the two peoples, but attempts to limit an expansionist movement which sought to gain more territory without the Arab population living on it.
There are those who, from 1967 until now, believe that it is possible to satisfy this hunger to settle and create settlements, to dispossess and rule and stay democratic via the creation of a Palestinian state in twenty percent of the territory. For a short historical moment, in the first years of the occupation, it might have been possible. But already in the 1970s, the situation became more complex and there were created facts on the ground of Jewish settlement which did not make the desired limitation possible.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 1:45 am #
(Pappe, continued from above)
A decade later, in the 1980s, the two state mantra has also passed a metamorphosis in face of the changing reality. The Zionist peace camp sought to increase the number of supporters of the idea of limitation and assimilate the settlement facts created on the ground, and therefore it knowingly shrunk the territory of the -state- intended for the Palestinians. The more that the territory shrunk, the connection increasingly disappeared between the Two State formula and the idea of a fair, full and viable solution to the conflict. In the present century, the more that the Two States solution became a common currency and the number of its adherents increased - and the list eventually included Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu, George W. Bush and others - the limitation became occupation. When the entire International Community adopted the Two State Solution, the occupation apparatus reaped a double benefit from the new reality.
On the one hand, under the umbrella of a “peace process” settlement was increased and deepened, tyranny and oppression were intensified - without an international criticism or sanctions. On the other hand, the creation of “facts on the ground” further decreased the territory which was supposedly excluded from the Zionist minotaur’s hunger. Under the idea of the Two States as a diplomatic international formula, it was generally agreed that the Zionist hunger for as much as half of the West Bank might be satisfied. Later, with the support of the entire Israeli peace camp, the Two State formula led to an inevitable, international support for the imprisoning of the entire Gaza Strip in a modern concentration camp.
The exclusive status given to the Two States formula, inside and outside the country, on the one hand made it possible for the official Israel to transform one form of occupation into another form in order to silence potential criticism of its war crimes - and on the other hand, it made it possible for the Israeli occupation apparatus to create facts on the ground which made the idea of the Palestinian state into a pipedream.
Look at it from whatever angle you choose. If justice be the basis for dividing the country, there can be no formula more cynical than the Two State formula: to the occupier and dispossessor, eighty percent; to the occupied, twenty percent in the best and probably utopian case, and more likely a ten percent which are divided and scattered. Moreover: the return of the refugees, where will it be, where will it be implemented? In the name of justice, the refugees have a right to decide if they could return, and they have the right to participate in defining the future of the entire country, not just of twenty percent.
On the other hand, if pragmatism and real politic are your guiding principles, and all you seek is to satisfy the hunger of the Zionist state for territory and demographic superiority, then let’s transfer Wadi Ara to the West Bank, and Hebron to Israel, and trust in the regional and global balance of forces and grant the Palestinians no more than a tiny piece of land, hermetically closed with fences, walls and barriers.
Yes, there are Palestinians in Nazareth and Ramalla who are willing to settle for even that, and they deserve to have their voice heard. But this is not enough, we must not silence the voices of the Palestinian majority in the refugee camps, in the diasporas and exiles, among the internal refugees and in the Occupied Territories, who want to be part of the future of the country which was once theirs. There will be no reconciliation, nor will there be justice here, if these Palestinians will not participate in defining the sovereignty, identity and future of the entire country. Reconciliation will be extended by including recognition of the right of the Jews who settled here by force to have a similar share in defining the future.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 1:34 am #
(Pappe, P. 2)
Let’s give the refugees their share and respect their aspirations to be partners with us in one state. Let’s check the practicability of this idea and of the road to it - because for sixty years already we have checked the Two State idea and the result is clear: continuation of exile, occupation, discrimination and dispossession.
It is wrong to propose democratic constitutions for west Beit Safafa, for Bak’ah Al-Garbiya and for eastern Arabeh - while at the same time shrugging off all responsibility for east Beit Safafa, for Bak’ah Al-Sharkiya and for western Arabeh, and saying: - They will be there, behind the Wall, oppressed, with no access to land, rights or resources. As Jewish and Palestinian citizens in this state we have relations of blood, of common fate and common disaster which cannot be ‘partitioned’. Such a division is neither moral nor practical.Following is an article by Ilan Pappe published in Tikkun
Zionism was born out of two logical and justified impulses. The first was the desire to find a safe shore for the Jews of East and Central Europe, after decades of anti-semitic persecutions - and possibly also a premonition that there was worse to come. The second impulse was to redefine the Jewish religion as a national movement, under the influence of “The Spring of the Peoples” in the mid-Nineteenth Century.
When the leaders of the movement decided, for reasons which cannot be detailed here, that the only territory where these two impulses can be fulfilled is Palestine, where nearly a million people already lived - this movement turned into a colonial project.
This colonial project got its definite form after the First World War. Despite getting a wide Imperial umbrella - in the form of the British Mandate - as a colonial project it was not a success story. The settlers succeeded to take over a bare six percent of the Palestinian homeland, and to constitute only a third of the country’s population.
The tragedy of the indigenous Palestinian population was not only their being the victims of a colonial movement - but specifically being the victim of a colonial movement which sought to create a democratic movement. In face of the clear Palestinian demographic majority, eleven leaders of Zionism did not hesitate in Mach 1948 to resolve upon ethnic cleansing, as the best means - considering the failures of Zionist colonialism - to create a Jewish, ethnically pure, democracy over most of Palestine’s territory.
Within less than a year after the historic decision was taken, the ethnic cleansing was carried out - which nowadays the international community would not have hesitated to call a crime against humanity. Systematically, from village to village and from city to city, the Jewish forces passed and cleansed the country of its indigenous population. They left destruction and ruin in their wake: more than five hundred ruined villages, and eleven towns. Half of Palestine’s towns and villages were forcibly emptied and half of the counry’s population (eighty percent of the population of what became the Jewish state) were uprooted from their homes, fields and livelihoods. This crime was retroactively approved by the International Community and remained a legitimized means in the hands of the Jewish state, then as well as now, to ensure the existence of a Jewish democracy on the country’s soil. The achievement and maintenance of a demographic majority became a sacred goal, and it became also the basis for the two-state solution to the conflict. The International Community, as well as the Israeli peace camp, sought to limit the territory where ethnic cleansing and the Jewish purity would prevail. The Zionist minotaur demanded - and by force, gained - a full eighty percent of Palestine. But that was not enough: when the historic opportunity arrived to satisfy not only demographic hunger but also territorial greediness, it in 1967 swallowed the whole of Palestine’s land.
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 3, 2007 at 1:28 am #
(Ilan Pappe article P. 3 continued from above)
Our political elites are incompetent at best and corrupt at worst, in all that relates to the conflict in this country. Those who accompany them in the neighboring countries and the wider world are as bad. When these elites masquerade as civil society and float the Geneva bubble, the situation only becomes worse and the prospects of peace move further away. Let us propose an alternative dialogue including the old and new settlers - even those who arrived yesterday - the expelled - of all generations - and the people who were left behind. Let us ask which political structure suits us - one which would involve and include the principles of justice, reconciliation and coexistence. Let us offer them at least one more model except the one which failed. In Bil’in we have struggled shoulder to shoulder against the occupation - we can also live together. Whom would we rather have as our neighbor, the Mattityahu Mizrah settlers or the Na’alin villagers?
And in order for this dialogue to start and grow, let us admit that despite our important efforts, we here with our own forces cannot stop ever-escalating occupation. Because occupation proceeds from the same ideological infrastructure on which the 1948 ethnic cleansing was erected, because of which the army massacred the inhaibitants of Kufr Quassem, because of which the lands of the Galilee, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were confiscated, and in whose name there take place every day detentions and killings without trial. The most murderous manifestation of this ideology is now in the Territories. It should and must be stopped soonest. For that, no expedient which has not yet been tried should be rejected. The appeal of Palestinian civil society for imposing boycotts and sanctions should be heeded. The sincerity should be recognized of the moral pressure exerted by associations of journalists, academics and physicians over the world who seek to sever contacts with official Israel and its representatives, as long as the crimes continue. Let us give this non-violent way a chance to end the occupation. From here and from there, we will call together for the castigation of a government and a state which continues to perpetrate such crimes; Jews and non-Jews, we will be immune from the stain of anti-semitism, unjustly cast at us. From every possible point of view - Socialist, Liberal, Jewish or Buddhist - a decent person cannot but call for the boycotting of a regime and a government which for forty years already are mistreating a civilian population only because it is Arab. And decent Jewish persons must let their voices resound more loudly than those of others calling for action and effort.
Whether or not the South African experience is the source and inspiration for the One State solution and for a justified and moral international boycott, it is unacceptable that this way and this vision remain without a thorough examination, only due to a continued adherence to a failing formula which had ling since become a recipe for disaster.
Report thisBy Robert, June 2, 2007 at 11:33 pm #
Comment #74817 by Peter RV on 6/2 at 10:22 am
“Hatred is a strategic weapon in the hands of the Zionists. The more of it they create, the more “reason” they have to continiue their murderous slaughter of Palestinian civilians.”
--------------------------------------------------
PRV...the fog has forever been removed from obstructing your vision of the TRUTH to the above matter & other zionist schemes.
I can relate to your position; I did not know any of what was going on in that part of the world. It was only when I read “They Dare To Speak Out” by Paul Findley, that is when that fog began to evaporate from in front of my eyes.
My trip to Israel & the Palestinian areas really opened the gates for me, the family, the neighbors, many friends at work. David & Gilda our Jewish neighbors have stopped talking to us because we showed photos & discussed what the IDF were doing & how Tel Aviv airport Israeli personnel were treating the Palestinians (Christians & Moslems). It was absolute “RACISM” of the worst kind. We told David & Gilda that it was the TRUTH & that is what we saw consistently during our 9 weeks over there.
Imagine, if we had about 30-50 “UNRESTRICTED” video cameras that were manned by Peace activists, Peace Makers, independent professional journalists & camera staff at those Israeli roadblocks/check points. What do you think we will see on our TV’s, computers, Internet, YouTube & others? I can guarantee you that 99% of Israel’s IDF barbaric treatment & humiliation of the Palestinian people would come to a complete stop. Israel would NEVER allow this to happen. WHY?
The zionists & the Israelis would do anything to shield the “American Public/People” from seeing what is REALLY going on over there...in regards to what the IDF are doing. They don’t want the “American People” to see the Israelis as the bad guys. They always manipulate the news, the real story, the truth to portray themselves as “the good guys”.
IDF & Israeli police usually lie about the killings / murders of Palestinian children, un-armed civilians. They will lie in court, in their reports & investigations. But when someone, comes up with a video that was taken secretly & shows all the truth and evidence, then its all about a different strategy.
Take a look at “lefty=ephraim pesach” & his zionist pals on this and other forums. They would lie if they saw their “IDF” killers shoot a 9 year old Palestinian girl. They would just say, she was hit by a stone/rock from her fellow classmates.
As for “lefty=ephraim pesach” that considerate/compassionate zionist that he is...he would just place “a bandaid” on that gunshot wound to show his genuine care for “non-Jews”.
Their methods & tactics on this forum is very similar to that of the IDF, Israeli police/agencies. Lie, lie and lie...!!!
Sidetrack the issues, personal attacks...that same ole ‘zionist’ methods. They think they are clever & cute with their deceptions. One can clearly see the methods & abscessed skulls spewing hatred & venom.
PRV...keep up the good work & the TRUTH !
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 2, 2007 at 9:41 pm #
Re #74896 by Inherit The Wind on 6/02 at 7:12 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
This fascist ultra right-wing rabbi is no more representive of the views of all Isreal or the Labor government than Ann Coulter (that nazi) represents the views of all America or the Democratic Party!
To base your opinions on the shit this “rabbi” spews is to agree with the neo-cons that all Moslems think like Osama Bin Laden. Or that all Americans think like Ann Coulter or Lewis Farakkhan. The idea is inane and your reasoning is seriously flawed. Do YOU agree with either Ann Coulter or Lewis Farakkhan? I sure as hell don’t!
To judge all Israelis and supporters of Israel based on this vile person is, as you yourself put it, slanderous.
Report this==================================================
Quite right, IHW - each Palestinian and Israeli is an individual unique human being. The trouble is these labels, these images, these stereotypes which prevent us from seeing each other as human beings.
By Lefty, June 2, 2007 at 7:19 pm #
Thank you Robert “Abu” for conclusively establishing, once and for all, that you are completely insane.
Folks, Abu lives in a paranoid, make believe world, that exists only in the sick, demented, depraved space between his ears.
For 60 years, Israel has done nothing but take reasonable, measured steps to defend itself from perpetual military and terrorist attacks by its 350 million Arab neighbors. In the insane, perverted world of Arabs like Abu, Jews daring to defend themselves is an act so intolerable that it justifies the systematic brainwash their own children in the business of hatred, bigotry, terrorism and suicide bombing, for, as Fadel explained, REVENGE!
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, June 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Peter RV on 6/02 at 10:22 am
(Unregistered commenter)
Ref.#74716 by Tony Wicher and
Ref.#74753 by Robert
Hatred is a strategic weapon in the hands of the Zionists. The more of it they create, the more “reason” they have to continue their murderous slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
Just read this link and decide whether it is an anti-Semitic propaganda.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=11805279666 93&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
A clear message to the “Judeo"-Christians, is it not?
BTW, Lefty, Righty, Inherit the Wind or Lilmamzar, this is the way I get my slanderous ideas about Israel. “
You said it, not me.
This fascist ultra right-wing rabbi is no more representive of the views of all Isreal or the Labor government than Ann Coulter (that nazi) represents the views of all America or the Democratic Party!
To base your opinions on the shit this “rabbi” spews is to agree with the neo-cons that all Moslems think like Osama Bin Laden. Or that all Americans think like Ann Coulter or Lewis Farakkhan. The idea is inane and your reasoning is seriously flawed. Do YOU agree with either Ann Coulter or Lewis Farakkhan? I sure as hell don’t!
To judge all Israelis and supporters of Israel based on this vile person is, as you yourself put it, slanderous.
Report thisBy Peter RV, June 2, 2007 at 10:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ref.#74716 by Tony Wicher and
Ref.#74753 by Robert
Hatred is a strategic weapon in the hands of the Zionists. The more of it they create, the more “reason” they have to continue their murderous slaughter of Palestinian civilians.
Just read this link and decide whether it is an anti-Semitic propaganda.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=11805279666 93&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
A clear message to the “Judeo"-Christians, is it not?
BTW, Lefty, Righty, Inherit the Wind or Lilmamzar, this is the way I get my slanderous ideas about Israel.
Report thisBy Robert, June 2, 2007 at 1:13 am #
(Continued from previous comment)
If you were a Palestinian and witnessed the daily/weekly most gruesome humiliations, the shoving, kicking, clubbing, spitting, punching, urinating upon, shooting, chocking, knocking down, slapping and many other “democratic Israeli/IDF methods” used on your mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, daughter, father, grandfather, uncle, cousins, neighbors, classmates, friends, pregnant wife...just everyday people...What would you do? Can you continue to just put up with it day after day and just accept it as a normal way of life?
Wouldn’t any decent freedom loving human being protest these conditions? How much more can the Palestinians endure these daily gruesome humiliations & barbaric Apartheid treatment from the Israelis...And still everyone just stands there & does nothing & NO daring to speak out from our Elected Representatives?
How many times have we watched and heard on the news in these United States about an abusive father who beats up on the wife, the son the daughter? What usually happened after that long punishing abuse?
We all know the answer to this question! The wife, the son, the daughter finally say we are NOT going to put up with this “ABUSE” anymore. This abused family “finished off” the brutal abusive father/husband with a gun, knife, baseball bat...and so on. They go to court and many times the proof is enough to set them free.
If one is abusive and corners his/hers pet cat, that friendly & peaceful cat will turn on its owner’s jugular arteries & his eyes.
So the moral of the story is, people can only take so much abuse and humiliations. Just look at what happened at our high schools killing fields in the last several years. WHY?
DID THEIR PARENTS TEACH THEM TO KILL, TO HATE, TO TERRORIZE AND KILL THEMSELVES?
Now, just think about what the Palestinians have to put up with. Their family member gets killed & murdered by the brutal IDF and the Israeli system never convicts any of its soldiers, for the murder of an Arab...NEVER. They just walk away scot-free.
No wonder why some Palestinians just can’t take what they had to put up with for so many years...abusive humiliations. Some just react to what has been happening to them, their family, their frustration, the racism that just engulfs them wherever they go under their “superiors”.
Just think what would happen if Israel started to reverse their brutal system that they exert on the Palestinians?
What if Israel started to treat these people with some respect & a few ounces of dignity! What if Israel started to remove 90% of its roadblocks & checkpoints as they promised they would?
What is Israel removed long & ugly Apartheid wall & stopped confiscating Palestinian land, farms, bulldozing homes & olive grove?
The what if(s) can go on for a long time...,BUT the end results would be… people would start to enjoy their lives, freedom, travel, opportunity, equal-rights for all, jobs, education, better future, dreams, and dignity…
MOST OF, IF NOT ALL VIOLENCE AND THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE & CHILDREN WOULD STOP ON BOTH SIDES.
PEACE WITH EQUAL-RIGHTS, FREEDOM AND JUSTICE TO ALL...ARE THE SOLID FOUNDATIONS FOR A LASTING PEACE!
Report thisBy Robert, June 2, 2007 at 12:04 am #
Comment #74207 by Peter RV on 5/31 at 7:25am
“"Of course, there would be drawbacks to overcome.
Jews would have to abandon their, lately favourite sport, of shooting of Palestinians from helicopters, and, yes, they would have to pull down that hideous Wall, also known cutely as- “the fence”. Also, settlers would have to learn that their swimming pools cannot be filled up before Palestinians have enough drinking or irrigation water.”
PRV...for a moment just think and imagine what Palestinian families, their children, their neighbors, their cities, towns and villagers have endured under a brutal zionist occupation for the last 40 years.
Israel & its brutal IDF have used the most gruesome methods to reek havoc on the unarmed Palestinian population. The Israelis have bombed & bulldozed their homes, schools, hospitals, government buildings, roads, bridges, electricity, water supply, shops, farms, crops, animals...and list goes on & on....LET US NOT FORGET THE ON-GOING ETHNIC CLEANSING!
Moreover, the IDF and other Israeli agencies have set up hundreds of “Israel checkpoints” all over the occupied territories. Palestinians are mostly forbidden & harshly restricted from moving from one Palestinian village to another, from one Palestinian town / city to another Palestinian town/ city. Immagine try to go to Jerusalem. The Palestinians live in a large prison and are closed up & are always under the mercy of their “superior “BLOOD” occupiers”. For example, A trip that would take about 30 minutes from Bethlehem to Ramalah for an Israeli settler; for a Palestinian family going to visit relatives, it may take 4-6 hours, or maybe more. These Palestinians are NOT going to the Israeli side; they are going to another Palestinian town. IDF at checkpoints delaying/punishment tactics…
Palestinians from East Jerusalem are not allowed to bring back goods from Bethlehem and other West Bank towns. The IDF inspectors enforce that at the checkpoints. If anyone brings back such goods, the IDF just take it & throw away. Its all about tightening those big IDF screws on the Palestinians. Its all about brutal & gruesome Apartheid control of the Palestinians. Its all about facilitating & promoting more suffering on the Palestinians...with hope that they would just succumb and surrender to Israel’s brutal occupation, lose their identity, dignity or just maybe leave the area.
If you or anyone from our rational readers/commenters were a “Palestinian”, how would anyone accept these conditions that are going on under Israel’s brutal IDF Apartheid systems on a daily basis, seven days a week, 365 days a year NON-STOP. And the world just looks on from the sidelines; America just keeps sending our hard earned taxpayers money to this brutal occupier and to the building of illegal “for Jews ONLY” settlements and supporting this Apartheid system.
Would you as a Palestinian living under those “Israeli Democratic” conditions like or love the treatment that the Israeli have always given to the Palestinians?
Would you as a Palestinian parent living in a refugee camp in Jenin, Bethlehem...other Palestinian territories locations, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon tell your kids and/or grandkids the TRUTH about what happened to the Palestinians & why they are still there & cannot go back to their homes, farm, towns, villages...etc...?
Would you tell the TRUTH about how an individual , who was born in Russia, and with ONLY one of his/her grandparents were Jewish, he/she can immigrate to Israel & become an Israeli citizen immediately, but if you were a Palestinian person and you were born in Jerusalem or any place in Palestine, you cannot even enter to visit your birthplace?
CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT >
Report thisBy Tony Wicher, June 1, 2007 at 8:18 pm #
Re #74550 by Inherit The Wind on 6/01 at 9:37 am
“TW, Having written this, don’t you see what Israel faces? By even daring to suggest these activists not live as murderers and consider a peaceful existence, you, who are totally sympathetic to their cause, was called “a tool of the Zionists” and the “Jewish Pigs” (exactly what the Jews were called in Germany after the First World War through 1945).
Yet despite your own personal experience with these people you believe that a one-state solution can provide a society in which Jews and Moslems can thrive together. TW, there’s a definite cognitive dissonance here. If I were Israeli, I would never trust one of your correspondents.
I hate to be so negative but I just don’t see any workable way that Israelis could trust them. Your experience is direct, not filtered through newspapers or news sites, and they are very scary. They sound like the Aryan Brotherhood and other such super-militant racist organizations here in the US.
You seem to consistently ignore their virulent racism and only attack that of Israelis. I don’t get it. Again, they’ve called you a tool of the “Jewish Pigs” just for suggesting a solution that doesn’t involve violence. How can you not see that they are unable and unwilling to abandon violence, and very willing to use it on their own who dare challenge or oppose them?
This whole thread is about a Palestinian man your correspondents would like to kill, and have tried to kill. Who in their right minds would expose their childrens’ lives to them?”
===============================================
IHW,
It is very difficult, I will admit. I was as taken aback by the fury of that Palestinian militant lady as I was by the fury of Lefty and Lil, who are ready to put the Palestinian people in cages and nuke the world if necessary. Both sides must to stop blaming the other and take a good long look in the mirror. I am doing my best to hold up that mirror to both sides.
My Palestinian militant correspondent claimed to speak for the Palestinian people, and she was not happy when I told her I knew plenty of Palestinians that did not agree with her. I told her that militarily the Palestinians did not have a chance and that she was only going to get all her people killed by firing those stupid rockets, but that Palestinians could have peace with justice by using non-violent and democratic methods. I have also corresponded with an ODS (One Democratic State) advocate living on the ground in Gaza. She is