Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
IMPORTANT: Palestinians tell you in their own words what it is they want
Palestinians have already accepted "Israel's right to exist" on 78% of historic Palestine. In return they were offered Bantustans with a "take it or leave it" attitude. In this post, Palestinians tell you in their own words what it is they want: Peace, equality, and justice. This stands in contrast to what Israel's supporters incessantly tell us about what Palestinians want.
Two States or One?
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 21 November 2002
When the PLO formally recognized Israel within its internationally recognized borders and agreed to a two-state solution in 1993, like most Palestinians, I swallowed hard but accepted it. We believed that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary to bring about peace. Those who completely rejected the creation of a state limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a mere twenty two percent of the country in which Palestinians were an overwhelming majority just fifty years ago -- were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement, both on the left and the Islamist right.
Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.
Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, just as they were until 1948.
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes of war and hatred. Moreover, an international legal framework already exists for the transition from the current situation to Palestinian statehood, at least in theory making the path easier than to any other solution.
For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.
Although I recognize that the two-state solution will soon become impracticable, if it is not already, due Israel's relentless settlement construction, I believe it may still have a last chance if Israel is willing to embrace the following principles:
1) Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have already made an historic compromise by accepting a state in only twenty-two percent of their homeland, and that no further concessions can justly be asked of them. Israel must declare that by conquering seventy eight percent of Palestine in 1948, far more than was allotted to it in the 1947 UN partition plan, it has completely fulfilled its territorial ambitions and will not seek any more expansion.
2) Israel must immediately cease all construction in the occupied territories, including "natural growth" and all the other devices that are used to disguise ongoing settlement building. Israel must immediately stop confiscating Palestinian land either for building settlements or settler roads.
3) Israel must agree that the goal of any further negotiations is a complete end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem within a fixed, early period, and agree to withdraw under neutral international supervision and guarantees.
4) Israel must recognize an independent, sovereign Palestinian state whose borders are those of June 4, 1967, with minor, agreed-upon modifications to rectify anomalies, such as divided villages and bisected roads. Any land ceded on one side of the line must be compensated with land of equal size, value and utility on the other side, as close as possible to the exchanged land.
5) Israel must agree to evacuate all settlements in the occupied territories, without exception, including settlements in and around occupied East Jerusalem.
6) Jerusalem, as an open city, would be the capital of two states. A formula for sharing power fairly between Palestinians and Israelis, with guaranteed access to holy places for peoples of all faiths, would replace the illegal Israeli occupation "municipality" imposed on the city since 1967. This could be accomplished by various formulas. If the Palestinians agree to allow any settlements to remain in and around Jerusalem, Israel must compensate both the State of Palestine and the private land owners for the land, and the settlers must agree to live either as Palestinian citizens or permanent residents under Palestinian laws. If Palestinians agree that some Israeli settlers can remain in East Jerusalem then Israel must agree to allow Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were expelled in West Jerusalem in 1947-48.
7) The most difficult issue is the right of return of Palestinian refugees and compensation and restitution for their property and suffering. The right to return is an individual legal right and is not negated by the two-state solution. At the same time, recognition of Israel as a sovereign state means acknowledging a political reality and interest that will have to be factored into any formula to implement the right of return. It is not difficult to imagine solutions which fall between the maximalist positions of both sides and which simultaneously take into account Israel's concerns, and provide Palestinian refugees with real choices, including return to their original homes, as mandated by UN Resolution 194. Palestinians could, for example, agree among themselves to a system of priority where those with the greatest need to return get to choose first (among the choices Palestinian refugees whose original homes no longer exist might be offered is a home in an evacuated Israeli settlement). Israel will not be able to get away with a merely symbolic recognition of Palestinian refugee rights, but nor would millions of refugees suddenly flood back as in the Israeli "nightmare" scenario. There is ground in between that can be reached through negotiations and international mediation.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.
From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists. For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.
I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his homeland? These are the questions that matter.
Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at each other's expense.
True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while conflict and bloodshed rage on.
http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article896.shtml Hanan Ashrawi on what Palestinians want.
This is a very interesting talk.
Fadia Rafeedie is a Palestinian-American who was the year 2000 recipient of the Berkeley's prestigious University Medal, and gave the student address at the University's commencement ceremony in May, 2000. She was scheduled to speak first in a convocation lineup that also included US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. After a last-minute schedule change placed Albright first and moved Rafeedie to the end of the program, Rafeedie decided to lay aside her prepared talk, and instead use her time to give an impromptu response to Albright's speech and to the protests that had been voiced from the audience while Albright was on stage.
She gave Madeleine "ThePriceIsWorthIt" Albright a piece of her mind during her convocation speech. You can just imagine what she said. If you want to read it, here it is:
Upstaged but Not Silenced
The speech below, however, is what I find truly inspirational. She shows the spirit of the Palestinian people in the face of Israeli atrocities.
http://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/ramfiles/DN042202_vid.ram
Edward Said: Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights
2003-02-19
Zellerbach Auditorium
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 21 November 2002
When the PLO formally recognized Israel within its internationally recognized borders and agreed to a two-state solution in 1993, like most Palestinians, I swallowed hard but accepted it. We believed that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary to bring about peace. Those who completely rejected the creation of a state limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a mere twenty two percent of the country in which Palestinians were an overwhelming majority just fifty years ago -- were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement, both on the left and the Islamist right.
Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.
Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, just as they were until 1948.
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes of war and hatred. Moreover, an international legal framework already exists for the transition from the current situation to Palestinian statehood, at least in theory making the path easier than to any other solution.
For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.
Although I recognize that the two-state solution will soon become impracticable, if it is not already, due Israel's relentless settlement construction, I believe it may still have a last chance if Israel is willing to embrace the following principles:
1) Israel must recognize that the Palestinians have already made an historic compromise by accepting a state in only twenty-two percent of their homeland, and that no further concessions can justly be asked of them. Israel must declare that by conquering seventy eight percent of Palestine in 1948, far more than was allotted to it in the 1947 UN partition plan, it has completely fulfilled its territorial ambitions and will not seek any more expansion.
2) Israel must immediately cease all construction in the occupied territories, including "natural growth" and all the other devices that are used to disguise ongoing settlement building. Israel must immediately stop confiscating Palestinian land either for building settlements or settler roads.
3) Israel must agree that the goal of any further negotiations is a complete end to the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem within a fixed, early period, and agree to withdraw under neutral international supervision and guarantees.
4) Israel must recognize an independent, sovereign Palestinian state whose borders are those of June 4, 1967, with minor, agreed-upon modifications to rectify anomalies, such as divided villages and bisected roads. Any land ceded on one side of the line must be compensated with land of equal size, value and utility on the other side, as close as possible to the exchanged land.
5) Israel must agree to evacuate all settlements in the occupied territories, without exception, including settlements in and around occupied East Jerusalem.
6) Jerusalem, as an open city, would be the capital of two states. A formula for sharing power fairly between Palestinians and Israelis, with guaranteed access to holy places for peoples of all faiths, would replace the illegal Israeli occupation "municipality" imposed on the city since 1967. This could be accomplished by various formulas. If the Palestinians agree to allow any settlements to remain in and around Jerusalem, Israel must compensate both the State of Palestine and the private land owners for the land, and the settlers must agree to live either as Palestinian citizens or permanent residents under Palestinian laws. If Palestinians agree that some Israeli settlers can remain in East Jerusalem then Israel must agree to allow Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were expelled in West Jerusalem in 1947-48.
7) The most difficult issue is the right of return of Palestinian refugees and compensation and restitution for their property and suffering. The right to return is an individual legal right and is not negated by the two-state solution. At the same time, recognition of Israel as a sovereign state means acknowledging a political reality and interest that will have to be factored into any formula to implement the right of return. It is not difficult to imagine solutions which fall between the maximalist positions of both sides and which simultaneously take into account Israel's concerns, and provide Palestinian refugees with real choices, including return to their original homes, as mandated by UN Resolution 194. Palestinians could, for example, agree among themselves to a system of priority where those with the greatest need to return get to choose first (among the choices Palestinian refugees whose original homes no longer exist might be offered is a home in an evacuated Israeli settlement). Israel will not be able to get away with a merely symbolic recognition of Palestinian refugee rights, but nor would millions of refugees suddenly flood back as in the Israeli "nightmare" scenario. There is ground in between that can be reached through negotiations and international mediation.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.
From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists. For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.
I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his homeland? These are the questions that matter.
Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at each other's expense.
True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while conflict and bloodshed rage on.
http://www.electronicintifada.net/v2/article896.shtml Hanan Ashrawi on what Palestinians want.
This is a very interesting talk.
VIDEO:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/amp_ashrawi_cu.ram
Fadia Rafeedie is a Palestinian-American who was the year 2000 recipient of the Berkeley's prestigious University Medal, and gave the student address at the University's commencement ceremony in May, 2000. She was scheduled to speak first in a convocation lineup that also included US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. After a last-minute schedule change placed Albright first and moved Rafeedie to the end of the program, Rafeedie decided to lay aside her prepared talk, and instead use her time to give an impromptu response to Albright's speech and to the protests that had been voiced from the audience while Albright was on stage.
She gave Madeleine "ThePriceIsWorthIt" Albright a piece of her mind during her convocation speech. You can just imagine what she said. If you want to read it, here it is:
Upstaged but Not Silenced
The speech below, however, is what I find truly inspirational. She shows the spirit of the Palestinian people in the face of Israeli atrocities.
VIDEO:
Forward to 29 minutes into this to hear Fadia's speech to 70,000 demonstrators gathered in DC last Aprilhttp://www.freespeech.org/fsitv/ramfiles/DN042202_vid.ram
Edward Said: Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights
2003-02-19
Zellerbach Auditorium
Professor Edward Said: "Memory, Inequality and Power: Palestine and the Universality of Human Rights"
This lecture was held at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, February 19, in Zellerbach Auditorium.
View Webcast
Running Time: 1 hour, 39 minutes
Said, author of the groundbreaking work "Orientalism" and a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, is one of the most prominent literary and cultural critics in the United States. His writings about the Middle East and its relationship to the West have had a major influence on both scholarship and public opinion.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
What a stupid article. First of all, half of "Palestine" was turned into Jordan. So there's 50%. To say Israel is 78% of "historic Palestine" is idiotic and untrue.
Secondly, Palestinians were receiving peace negotiations 2.5 years ago, Arafat ended the talks, did not counter-negotiate, and urged his misguided people to attack Israel in the worst idea in years, "Intifada 2."
Thirdly, if you are going to demand "reparations" for palestinian refugees who may have lived in israel, why are you not also demanding reparations for jewish refugees who had to flee arab countries? Why do you demand reparations for hundreds of thousands of arabs who left or fled, but you don't demand reparations for hundreds of thousands of jews who left or fled when arab countries took their anger over israel out on any jew nearby they could find?
And if you call for palestinaisn to get the "right of return" into israel, are you also going to call for the "right of return" of jews back into iraq, iran, lebanon, syria, jordan, etc.? If not, why not? Are you also going to demand that america return the country to the indians?
And what should be done about Hamas, the most popular Palestinian organiation around, who seek the destruction of israel no matter what israel does?
Also, why not point out that a huge percentage of palestinians who lived in "palestine" or israel immigrated in the early 1900's, like jews did, only the british limited jewish immigration (even during the holocaust) while arab immigration was unrestricted?
That article was crap. Sorry. But hey, it was better than the insane anti-zionist frothing at the mouth that's usually here.
Secondly, Palestinians were receiving peace negotiations 2.5 years ago, Arafat ended the talks, did not counter-negotiate, and urged his misguided people to attack Israel in the worst idea in years, "Intifada 2."
Thirdly, if you are going to demand "reparations" for palestinian refugees who may have lived in israel, why are you not also demanding reparations for jewish refugees who had to flee arab countries? Why do you demand reparations for hundreds of thousands of arabs who left or fled, but you don't demand reparations for hundreds of thousands of jews who left or fled when arab countries took their anger over israel out on any jew nearby they could find?
And if you call for palestinaisn to get the "right of return" into israel, are you also going to call for the "right of return" of jews back into iraq, iran, lebanon, syria, jordan, etc.? If not, why not? Are you also going to demand that america return the country to the indians?
And what should be done about Hamas, the most popular Palestinian organiation around, who seek the destruction of israel no matter what israel does?
Also, why not point out that a huge percentage of palestinians who lived in "palestine" or israel immigrated in the early 1900's, like jews did, only the british limited jewish immigration (even during the holocaust) while arab immigration was unrestricted?
That article was crap. Sorry. But hey, it was better than the insane anti-zionist frothing at the mouth that's usually here.
That article is crap. Half of "historic Palestine" is already a state, called JORDAN. And to say only israel is preventing peace is idiotic, what about "intifada 2" and hamas and hezbollah and islamic jihad?
The Palestinians agreed to peace. They recognized Israel and those who did not were relegated to the margins.
Israel rewarded them by creating creeping settlements that stole even more of their land and then offered them Bantustans in the end (Barak's so-called "generous offer").
Israel was even offered the hand of peace by all the Arab states last March 2002 in the Arab League Summit in Beirut, but Ariel Sharon rejected it, calling it "the destruction of Israel." Israel wants safety and security while it continues its war crimes against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, including murder, theft of property, torture, abductions, etc. etc. ad nauseum...
Israel is the one spurning peace at this point. At the very least, the Left should understand this.
Israel rewarded them by creating creeping settlements that stole even more of their land and then offered them Bantustans in the end (Barak's so-called "generous offer").
Israel was even offered the hand of peace by all the Arab states last March 2002 in the Arab League Summit in Beirut, but Ariel Sharon rejected it, calling it "the destruction of Israel." Israel wants safety and security while it continues its war crimes against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, including murder, theft of property, torture, abductions, etc. etc. ad nauseum...
Israel is the one spurning peace at this point. At the very least, the Left should understand this.
Where to begin? The comments are either people who are woefully misinformed - or deliberately spreading B.S.
I recommend, just for starters, going to the Israeli website http://www.icahd.org Read it, and go to the links for more - all in Israel.
Read the Israeli Reservist website at http://www.seruv.org.il
For more information:
http://www.seruv.org.il
Could you please clarify which comments you were referring to.
Also, did you get a chance to read the article above and see the videos?
Also, did you get a chance to read the article above and see the videos?
groups like Hamas view not only Israel as anathema but Jews. Even if the two sides sit down, there will be activists from these groups who will kill Arabs who want to negotiate.
"This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised."
Same with the other side of the conflict. If Israel sits down to negotiate there will be some ultra-religious Jewish nuts who will try to prevent this with violence. Remember what happened to Rabin?
"This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised."
Same with the other side of the conflict. If Israel sits down to negotiate there will be some ultra-religious Jewish nuts who will try to prevent this with violence. Remember what happened to Rabin?
So until every single Palestinian decides to renounce any claims they have to historic Palestine and choose Ghandian non-violence, Israel will have no choice but to maintain its Occupation and the land grabs inherent in that? Is that what I'm understanding?
Look, Palestinians have made extraordinary concessions and believed sincerely that those concessions would be reciprocated (see Ali Abunimah's article above). But all they got in exchange was a take it or leave it offer of Bantustans.
And this was from the left wing Labor party of Ehud Barak (Barak's "generous offer"). I don't expect you to be fair in this conflict, but it is extremely frustrating and disappointing that you aren't. Because if you and others like you were fair, this conflict would have ended long ago with real justice for the Palestinians and peace and security for Israel. Instead you choose to defend Israel's policy of territorial expansion and obfuscate the reality which you probably understand pretty well.
Look, Palestinians have made extraordinary concessions and believed sincerely that those concessions would be reciprocated (see Ali Abunimah's article above). But all they got in exchange was a take it or leave it offer of Bantustans.
And this was from the left wing Labor party of Ehud Barak (Barak's "generous offer"). I don't expect you to be fair in this conflict, but it is extremely frustrating and disappointing that you aren't. Because if you and others like you were fair, this conflict would have ended long ago with real justice for the Palestinians and peace and security for Israel. Instead you choose to defend Israel's policy of territorial expansion and obfuscate the reality which you probably understand pretty well.
up to the top
You can't always get what you want.
That's why it is up to the left to bring this issue into the consciousness of the mainstream. Because Palestinians have been put through Hell for way too long and the key to peace and justice is in our hands. We pay for Israel's ability to maintain its Occupation and by ending that support, Israel would be forced to give peace a chance -- something that they have never been willing to do despite their claims to the contrary.
Palestinians have already made huge concessions and Israel has not reciprocated.
Palestinians have already made huge concessions and Israel has not reciprocated.
No, not every single palestinian has to agree to be nice to israel for there to be peace, but when THE MOST POPULAR PALESTINIAN ORGANIZATIONS (hamas, etc.) are still waging active war against israel, and have made it clear that they still oppose israel's existence, then israel must still crack down.
Hamas want to destroy israel no matter what, even if israel ends their "occupation." So if israel totally withdraws, and hamas are just going to take the opportunity to come right over and kill israelis inside israel, instead of juset isareli "settlers," obviously israel can't stand for that.
If you've followed these events at all over the last few years, you'd know that every time israel withdrew from most palestinian towns, attacks against israeli civilians inside israel INCREASED, and then every time israel would go back and occupy towns, attacks against isarelis inside israel didn't occur nearly as often.
In other words, hamas are attacking no matter what. If palestinians can't or won't stop them, israel has to.
Hamas want to destroy israel no matter what, even if israel ends their "occupation." So if israel totally withdraws, and hamas are just going to take the opportunity to come right over and kill israelis inside israel, instead of juset isareli "settlers," obviously israel can't stand for that.
If you've followed these events at all over the last few years, you'd know that every time israel withdrew from most palestinian towns, attacks against israeli civilians inside israel INCREASED, and then every time israel would go back and occupy towns, attacks against isarelis inside israel didn't occur nearly as often.
In other words, hamas are attacking no matter what. If palestinians can't or won't stop them, israel has to.
When the PLO formally recognized Israel within its internationally recognized borders and agreed to a two-state solution in 1993, like most Palestinians, I swallowed hard but accepted it. We believed that this unprecedented historic compromise, though bitter, was necessary to bring about peace. Those who completely rejected the creation of a state limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- a mere twenty two percent of the country in which Palestinians were an overwhelming majority just fifty years ago -- were relegated to the margins of the Palestinian movement, both on the left and the Islamist right.
Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.
Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, just as they were until 1948.
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes of war and hatred...
For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.
From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists. For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.
I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his homeland? These are the questions that matter.
Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at each other's expense.
True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while conflict and bloodshed rage on.
Israel gave everyone the impression that it would agree to a Palestinian state, and that it was only a matter of working out the technical formalities. But almost 10 years later, Israel has still never recognized the Palestinian right to statehood, much less agreed to the creation of such a state. On the contrary, in practice it has done everything to make the emergence of such a state impossible by continuing to furiously build colonies all over the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The settler population in the West Bank has more than doubled since 1993, and not a day goes by without further colonization.
Because this policy has succeeded in solidifying Israeli control, and has, as intended, rendered a rational partition of the country virtually impossible, an increasing number of Palestinians, including some representatives of the Palestinian Authority, have started to talk once again about bi-nationalism -- the creation of a single democratic state for Israelis and Palestinians -- as the only viable solution to the conflict.
This idea is horrifying to many Israelis, who view it as a plot to "destroy Israel" since the vastly higher birth rate among Palestinians will soon make them a majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, just as they were until 1948.
None are more horrified by this prospect than Israel's traditional "peace camp," represented by the Labor and Meretz parties. And yet, because of its liberal values, the "peace camp" is unable to embrace formal apartheid or ethnic cleansing to "solve the demographic problem" as do Israel's right wing parties. The liberals want both the benefits of Jewish privilege that comes from living in a "Jewish state" while at the same time being faithful to their democratic values. They have shown themselves to be entirely bankrupt morally, intellectually and politically, and to have no serious ideas whatsoever for resolving the conundrum of their hypocrisy. They embrace Palestinian statehood warmly in theory but miss no opportunity to undermine and sabotage it in practice and to present proposals for meaningless and nominal statehood within a greater Israel.
I am one of those who accepted the two-state solution (although I opposed the Oslo Accords because I believed they could not lead to that goal) not enthusiastically, but because it offers Palestinians and Israelis a chance at normalcy from which they could one day -- like the European Union -- build a future of peace and prosperity from the ashes of war and hatred...
For Palestinians, giving up the seventy-eight percent of Palestine that became Israel in 1948 is giving up a part of themselves. It is gut-wrenchingly hard, and for some impossible. I respect that. For millions of Palestinians this is the land from which they, their parents or grandparents were expelled, in which homes and farms, shops and factories, churches and mosques, an entire society, was uprooted in exchange for decades of dispossession, misery in refugee camps, and demonization by Israel and its apologists. But, like millions of others, I was prepared to accept it for the sake of peace.
Palestinian private property remains inviolate and all property seized by Israel, even of those who choose not to return, must be returned to its owners or paid for at the fair market price, including use and interest. Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Stuart Eizenstat set out some sensible principles for dealing with property confiscated from European Jews and others by Nazi Germany, which could be adopted here. The same principles should apply to any Jews who were forced to leave Arab states as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These conditions represent an enormous historic compromise. They call for two states, a Jewish Israel on seventy eight percent of the territory of historic Palestine and a State of Palestine on just twenty two percent. They call for full recognition of Israel within secure and recognized borders, the implementation of UN resolutions, sharing of Jerusalem and a just resolution to the refugee problem that respects refugee rights as well as Israel's needs.
From this basis, Israelis, Palestinians and later perhaps Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese and Syrians, might after a couple of generations feel they can join together in something like the European Union. That would be a choice freely made among sovereign peoples. I could live with this, and, though I do not speak for anyone but myself, I believe that other Palestinians could too -- indeed this is basically what millions of them thought they were endorsing when they elected Yasir Arafat as president of the Palestinian Authority.
The problem is that there is not one major Israeli party or leader who is willing to put such a vision to the Israeli people. Even the most "dovish" want to keep most of the settlers where they are, annex large chunks of the West Bank, keep control of most of Jerusalem, and reject categorically any discussion of the right of return. No allowance is made for the massive compromises already made by the Palestinians, and more still are demanded. Israeli sociologist Jeff Halper argues that it is already too late and Israel's "matrix of control" in the occupied territories cannot, in effect, be dismantled. If Halper is right, then nothing any Israeli leader says will save the two-state solution. But if he is wrong and it can be saved, time is very short and we must hear a commitment to completely end the occupation from the Israelis now. After all, they are the principal beneficiaries of this solution.
The whole world is waiting, not least the Arab world which again held out its hand to Israel last March when the Arab League unanimously reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution.
Sadly, though, the political field in Israel looks unlikely produce anyone who will seize this golden opportunity. I believe, therefore, that Israel will likely miss the boat on the two-state solution, and we will have to think about what it will be like to live together in one state, and more importantly how to get there peacefully because no road map exists. For me, that is not a bad thing. I have no problem with the idea of living with Israelis, as long as we are equal before the law and in practice. I do not see the births or immigration of Jews as a "demographic time bomb" to be regarded with horror, nor am I frightened of having next door neighbors who speak a different language or worship in different ways. I embrace human and cultural diversity, no less in the land where my parents were born, than I do here in the United States.
I am prepared to accept two states as a practical solution to the conflict and do everything in my power to make it work. However, the mere trappings of nationalism -- flags, anthems, stately buildings, and passports -- mean absolutely nothing to me in themselves and I would just as soon do away with them. What matters is the content: does the flag represent true independence and sovereignty? Does the anthem represent common humanist values? Do the buildings enclose genuinely democratic institutions that do justice? Does a passport give its holder the freedom to travel the world and live securely in his homeland? These are the questions that matter.
Palestine/Israel could be two countries with a border between them that may one day lose its significance, just as the border between France and Germany has lost its power to divide people. Or, it could be one country for two peoples. I do not really care as long as we choose one path quickly and stick to it, and that, in the end, Israelis and Palestinians enjoy peace, democracy and human rights together, not at each other's expense.
True peace, whatever way we choose to achieve it, has a price. The powerful must give up some of their power and share it with the weak, or conflict is inevitable. Both a genuine two-state solution, as well as a single democratic state, would require that Israelis relinquish their monopoly on power in a manner they have never seriously considered thus far. Peace only came to South Africa when whites realized this and gave up their monopoly on power. Israel is far from that point and still seems to be looking for a way to avoid the choice. That means discussion about how to live together will remain only academic, while conflict and bloodshed rage on.
Fact is that prior to WWII, the Jews and Palestinians lived peacefully side by side. Herzl and Weisman
led the Zionist charge to reclaim the unholy land.
Money poured in to buy up Palestinian Land. The Zionists even cooperated with Hitler for the purposes of replanting German Jews into Palestine.
The day after the UN declared Israel a state, the dispossession and slaughter (ethnic cleansing) of Palestine started with slaughters at Qibyum and Dar Yassin, it has only gotten worse, the Israeli government has never recognized any UN Resolution or attempt to mediate a fair and just settlement. They fear losing the Jewish identity of the state by inclusion of Palestinians.
They don't want to get rid of ALL Palestinians, they need them as Shabbath goy, to work on the Sabbath, and as a source of low paid labor for menial jobs.
But if one looks at a hyrdological map of Palestine, and one looks at the settlements, both existing and planned, you will see what the real goal is, control of that most important resource water.
Some demographic data.
SOME POPULATION FIGURES FOR MANDATE PALESTINE.
In 1880 there were 24,000 Jews living among 450,000 Palestinians.
In 1914 there were 56,000 Jews living among 715,000 Palestinians.
In 1922 there were 83,000 Jews living among 663,000 Palestinians.
In 1936 there were 385,400 Jews living among 983,200 Palestinians.
In 1940 there were 467,000 Jews living among 1,050,000 Palestinians.
In 1946 there were 600,000 Jews living among 1,300,000 Palestinians.
BEFORE 1948 THERE WERE 475 PALESTINIAN TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN PALESTINE
In 1940, 45,000 Christians lived in Jerusalem. Today there are less than 10,000. In all of modern Palestine at the beginning of this century, Christians composed over 20 percent of the population. Today they amount to less than two percent .
What is really going on is the aggressor (Zionist Israeli's) blaming the victim (Palestinians).
One see's the same thing these days in court. Where the rapist blames the victim, or the robber suing the homeowner for shooting him in self defense and thus depriving him of his ability to earn a living.
led the Zionist charge to reclaim the unholy land.
Money poured in to buy up Palestinian Land. The Zionists even cooperated with Hitler for the purposes of replanting German Jews into Palestine.
The day after the UN declared Israel a state, the dispossession and slaughter (ethnic cleansing) of Palestine started with slaughters at Qibyum and Dar Yassin, it has only gotten worse, the Israeli government has never recognized any UN Resolution or attempt to mediate a fair and just settlement. They fear losing the Jewish identity of the state by inclusion of Palestinians.
They don't want to get rid of ALL Palestinians, they need them as Shabbath goy, to work on the Sabbath, and as a source of low paid labor for menial jobs.
But if one looks at a hyrdological map of Palestine, and one looks at the settlements, both existing and planned, you will see what the real goal is, control of that most important resource water.
Some demographic data.
SOME POPULATION FIGURES FOR MANDATE PALESTINE.
In 1880 there were 24,000 Jews living among 450,000 Palestinians.
In 1914 there were 56,000 Jews living among 715,000 Palestinians.
In 1922 there were 83,000 Jews living among 663,000 Palestinians.
In 1936 there were 385,400 Jews living among 983,200 Palestinians.
In 1940 there were 467,000 Jews living among 1,050,000 Palestinians.
In 1946 there were 600,000 Jews living among 1,300,000 Palestinians.
BEFORE 1948 THERE WERE 475 PALESTINIAN TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN PALESTINE
In 1940, 45,000 Christians lived in Jerusalem. Today there are less than 10,000. In all of modern Palestine at the beginning of this century, Christians composed over 20 percent of the population. Today they amount to less than two percent .
What is really going on is the aggressor (Zionist Israeli's) blaming the victim (Palestinians).
One see's the same thing these days in court. Where the rapist blames the victim, or the robber suing the homeowner for shooting him in self defense and thus depriving him of his ability to earn a living.
Have the Israelis ever tried keeping their word to the Palestinians and allowing Palestine to EXIST without soldiers and settlers?
How can you say that it would never work if it has NEVER BEEN TRIED.
Israel never tried peace with the Palestinians. They use the Palestinians' retaliation as an excuse to keep robbing them. During the first uprising (1988-1990), the Palestinians used no violence (except stone throwing) and they were shot down and had their bones broken. Israel didn't give them peace then and has no intention to do so now. Israel is interested in only one thing MORE LAND. And we're paying for it with our tax dollars.
How can you say that it would never work if it has NEVER BEEN TRIED.
Israel never tried peace with the Palestinians. They use the Palestinians' retaliation as an excuse to keep robbing them. During the first uprising (1988-1990), the Palestinians used no violence (except stone throwing) and they were shot down and had their bones broken. Israel didn't give them peace then and has no intention to do so now. Israel is interested in only one thing MORE LAND. And we're paying for it with our tax dollars.
Hanan is a Palestinian lawyer [with second-class Israeli citizenship], who works with the human rights group LAW.
She told me, "I am against the attacks on Israeli civilians– but why does the media feature the victims of suicide bombings but says nothing about the Palestinian children who were just killed? Is our blood so cheap?" -Penny Rosenwasser, Middle East Children's Alliance
For more information:
http://www.MECAforPEACE.org/penny02.html
Have we forgotten that Israel, led by Barak at the time, offered to arrange for Palestinian independence and sovereignty, and turn over 98% of what Arafat said the Palestinian people wanted? Why was the agreement never sealed? Arafat nixed it, not Barak. Why is there no criticism of Arafat here?
I hear lots of talk about "colonization" and "occupation". This has gone on for hundreds of thousands of years, and people of very different backgrounds find ways of getting along. It should be no different now. Nor should it be different between Israelis and Palestinians. The strong survive, the weak assimilate into the strong population or find new ground. It's just a fact of life everywhere. It's tough, but that's the way it works. Eat, be eaten, or find a way to coexist. But in the Middle East, grudges are held and claims to land are made with intentional ignorance of historical possession. As a result, hate is fomented in very ignorant and uninformed people. So the cycle continues. Israel is certainly no innocent bystander, but the majority of the world cannot understand why the PLO will not settle with Israel for what they can get and be done with it. The only possible explanation is that they don't really want what they tell the world they want.
The world does not believe the PLO any more. And the Palestinian people have a choice. Continue to follow the PLO into certain failure and abject poverty for generations to come, or reject the PLO and its lies and make a better life for Palestinian children. We make things so complicated for ourselves, and it's really so simple when you stop to think.
Palestinians starting "Intifada 2" when they were very close to getting their own state was completely idiotic. They did it knowing Israel would respond and hit back hard, and that's what has happened. Call off Intifada 2 and somehow contain or ban Hamas and other sick terrorists and that would put pressure on israel to withdraw. As long as "intifada 2" is still called on israel, there is no reason for israel (or any nation with an attack called on it) to withdraw.
I hear lots of talk about "colonization" and "occupation". This has gone on for hundreds of thousands of years, and people of very different backgrounds find ways of getting along. It should be no different now. Nor should it be different between Israelis and Palestinians. The strong survive, the weak assimilate into the strong population or find new ground. It's just a fact of life everywhere. It's tough, but that's the way it works. Eat, be eaten, or find a way to coexist. But in the Middle East, grudges are held and claims to land are made with intentional ignorance of historical possession. As a result, hate is fomented in very ignorant and uninformed people. So the cycle continues. Israel is certainly no innocent bystander, but the majority of the world cannot understand why the PLO will not settle with Israel for what they can get and be done with it. The only possible explanation is that they don't really want what they tell the world they want.
The world does not believe the PLO any more. And the Palestinian people have a choice. Continue to follow the PLO into certain failure and abject poverty for generations to come, or reject the PLO and its lies and make a better life for Palestinian children. We make things so complicated for ourselves, and it's really so simple when you stop to think.
Palestinians starting "Intifada 2" when they were very close to getting their own state was completely idiotic. They did it knowing Israel would respond and hit back hard, and that's what has happened. Call off Intifada 2 and somehow contain or ban Hamas and other sick terrorists and that would put pressure on israel to withdraw. As long as "intifada 2" is still called on israel, there is no reason for israel (or any nation with an attack called on it) to withdraw.
heard this song so i'm passing it on for others to sing out loud and strong
I heard a young woman sing this song at a dinky writer’s night (open mike) in Nashville, and when she finished you coulda heard a feather drop. Nobody said a word, or clapped, or nothing. Later I got the lyrics from her and she said someone had given them to her who had gotten them off the internet. Said it was a public domain song, using the same chord progression as Bob Dylan’s song ‘Chimes of Freedom Flashing’, with more or less the same melody, however that was up to the singer. So, hearing about so many Palestinians killed in the last couple of weeks I decided to repost the lyrics around. Hope some of you singer-songwriters start singing it like she did. It gave me goose-bumps to hear it all out in public.
Song For Palestine
Use Chord Progression from ‘Chimes of Freedom’ by Bob Dylan
In the burning streets of Bethlehem deserted and forlorn
Standing with our stones of freedom waiting
As prophetic swells of sirens ripped all silence from the air
We sang our freedom song and started throwing
Throwing at the soldiers, whose guns we do not fear
Throwing at the deadly tanks rumbling far and near
And at all the mindless money that put the soldiers here
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
In our city’s raging violence, undauntedly we threw
Our faces fixed on armored cars approaching
F-16’s echoing over bombed out neighborhoods
Steadfast we raised our stones and kept on throwing
Throwing at the Generals, War Criminals and Crooks
We throw at writers justifying murder in their books,
At racist settlers squatting on the land the soldiers took
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Five of us together, none more than twelve years old
We stood below the circling ‘copters cracking
Defying evil elements of hatred laced in steel
Then Israeli hidden snipers started shooting
Shooting at our fathers, kneeling on the ground
Blindfolded with the rags of peace, their hands obscenely bound
While our mothers search for water they hear the bullets’ sound
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Throughout the Territories, the name of Palestine
Is ringing from the tongues of angry children
Denied a child’s necessities, we claim our right to be
We claim our rights with every stone we’re throwing
Throwing at Americans who pay the Butcher’s bill,
Whose diplomats are Generals, they’re only trained to kill,
We throw at fat politicians who’ve never missed a meal
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Bulldozers crush our olive trees, our homes, our terraces, our fields
To eliminate all trace of our existence
But as the cactus that we planted is reborn on stolen land
Our freedom grows with every stone we’re throwing
Throwing at the newspapers, whose Truth is bought and sold
At talking television heads who keep our tale from being told
Throwing at reporters who ignore us dying in the cold
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying.
None dare to call us heroes, none dare to find out why
We risk our lives to throw these stones at our oppressors
Instead they call us terrorists to justify their terror war
In their world soldiers shooting children is not terror
We’re throwing at the bureaucrats in the United Nations’ Hall,
At world leaders doing nothing as the bombs of terror fall
Throwing at the whole wide world who refuse to hear our call
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
The U.S.A. is waiting, watching from on high
Pretending that their hands are clean and guiltless
But they provide the weapons, they prevent the Peace
Apartheid is the goal they are pursuing
We’re throwing at the hypocrites, the whole dishonest crew
At all those participating in what Israeli soldiers do
And American taxpayers, we throw our stones at you!
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying.
Occupation takes our innocence, we’re sacrificed for greed
We’re sacrificed for God and Gasoline
They shoot us ‘cause we have the nerve to demand our liberty
Freedom is now all we have to live for
We’re throwing for the future, for other children to be free
While Israel destroys our childhood with blind stupidity
We’re throwing stones at all you cowards doing nothing so silently
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
I heard a young woman sing this song at a dinky writer’s night (open mike) in Nashville, and when she finished you coulda heard a feather drop. Nobody said a word, or clapped, or nothing. Later I got the lyrics from her and she said someone had given them to her who had gotten them off the internet. Said it was a public domain song, using the same chord progression as Bob Dylan’s song ‘Chimes of Freedom Flashing’, with more or less the same melody, however that was up to the singer. So, hearing about so many Palestinians killed in the last couple of weeks I decided to repost the lyrics around. Hope some of you singer-songwriters start singing it like she did. It gave me goose-bumps to hear it all out in public.
Song For Palestine
Use Chord Progression from ‘Chimes of Freedom’ by Bob Dylan
In the burning streets of Bethlehem deserted and forlorn
Standing with our stones of freedom waiting
As prophetic swells of sirens ripped all silence from the air
We sang our freedom song and started throwing
Throwing at the soldiers, whose guns we do not fear
Throwing at the deadly tanks rumbling far and near
And at all the mindless money that put the soldiers here
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
In our city’s raging violence, undauntedly we threw
Our faces fixed on armored cars approaching
F-16’s echoing over bombed out neighborhoods
Steadfast we raised our stones and kept on throwing
Throwing at the Generals, War Criminals and Crooks
We throw at writers justifying murder in their books,
At racist settlers squatting on the land the soldiers took
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Five of us together, none more than twelve years old
We stood below the circling ‘copters cracking
Defying evil elements of hatred laced in steel
Then Israeli hidden snipers started shooting
Shooting at our fathers, kneeling on the ground
Blindfolded with the rags of peace, their hands obscenely bound
While our mothers search for water they hear the bullets’ sound
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Throughout the Territories, the name of Palestine
Is ringing from the tongues of angry children
Denied a child’s necessities, we claim our right to be
We claim our rights with every stone we’re throwing
Throwing at Americans who pay the Butcher’s bill,
Whose diplomats are Generals, they’re only trained to kill,
We throw at fat politicians who’ve never missed a meal
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
Bulldozers crush our olive trees, our homes, our terraces, our fields
To eliminate all trace of our existence
But as the cactus that we planted is reborn on stolen land
Our freedom grows with every stone we’re throwing
Throwing at the newspapers, whose Truth is bought and sold
At talking television heads who keep our tale from being told
Throwing at reporters who ignore us dying in the cold
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying.
None dare to call us heroes, none dare to find out why
We risk our lives to throw these stones at our oppressors
Instead they call us terrorists to justify their terror war
In their world soldiers shooting children is not terror
We’re throwing at the bureaucrats in the United Nations’ Hall,
At world leaders doing nothing as the bombs of terror fall
Throwing at the whole wide world who refuse to hear our call
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
The U.S.A. is waiting, watching from on high
Pretending that their hands are clean and guiltless
But they provide the weapons, they prevent the Peace
Apartheid is the goal they are pursuing
We’re throwing at the hypocrites, the whole dishonest crew
At all those participating in what Israeli soldiers do
And American taxpayers, we throw our stones at you!
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying.
Occupation takes our innocence, we’re sacrificed for greed
We’re sacrificed for God and Gasoline
They shoot us ‘cause we have the nerve to demand our liberty
Freedom is now all we have to live for
We’re throwing for the future, for other children to be free
While Israel destroys our childhood with blind stupidity
We’re throwing stones at all you cowards doing nothing so silently
We sang and sent the stones of freedom flying
The Zev and Ari Show
Time for Full Disclosure
by WILLIAM HUGHES
Professor Edward Said, a champion of the Palestinian cause, was roundly condemned by Zev Chafets, a columnist for the NY Daily News (02/19/03). Thank goodness, Said isn't living in the West Bank or Gaza. If he were in occupied Palestine, Ariel Sharon's goon squad would have probably bulldozed his home into a pile of rumble (and his relatives' homes, too, just for good measure).
What got Chafets riled up was Said's brilliant commentary, entitled, "A Monument to Hypocrisy". It is a marvelous essay that deals with the pro-Israeli influence over the Bush-Cheney administration. It tells how wrongdoings similar to those of Saddam Hussein have actually been the "stock in trade of every Israeli government since 1948. Ironically, since Chafets complained about the article so boorishly, more folks will now want to read it for themselves.
Said also wrote, "President Bush and his advisers are slaves of power perfectly embodied in the repetitive monotone of their collective spokesman Ari Fleischer (who I believe is also an Israeli citizen)". Well, Chafets thought that last line belonged in the conspiracy camp of the "Neo-Nazi and White Aryan Resistance" movements. For him, it was bad enough that Said had raised questions about "the Perles and Wolfowitzs" of this country, leading America into a war. But, by suggesting Fleischer was "a citizen of Sharonland," was just too much for him.
The record, however, shows the Washington Post (02/09/02) covered a lot of the same ground Said did, in an article by Robert G. Kaiser, entitled, "Bush Moves U.S. Closer to Sharon on Mideast Policy". It revealed how Israeli Firsters in the government, (the author labeled them "Likudniks", "hard-liners", and "hawks"), like Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser and Dough J. Feith, have urged the abandonment of the Oslo Accords and for the U.S. to focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power. For some reason, President Bush's Dr. Strangelove, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, wasn't mentioned in that piece. Kaiser also said that Mideast experts regularly refer to this pro-Israel clique, "as a cabal. "
So, why the touchy reaction to Said's commentary from Chafets?
Well, Chafets was born in Michigan, but lived for 33 years in his beloved fatherland, Zionist Israel. He served in the Israeli military and was also the chief Press Officer for the late Israeli Prime Minister, the old terrorist himself, Menachem Begin. Did Said strike a raw nerve with his Hypocrisy article with Chafets? I'd say so!
Chafets is a classic dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel. He's also, more importantly, a Zionist. Since Chafets is a journalist, I think that required disclosure to his readers on his off-the-wall Said rant. Chafets insisted, wrongly I think, that Said should have cited an authority for his belief that Fleischer might have been "an Israel citizen." Within the context of that essay, it was only a throw-a-way, speculative line. And anyway, did Chafets cite any authority for his theological-sounding proposition that a pundit must ask to be forgiven for not using a footnote?
As for Fleischer, it doesn't bother me if he is a citizen of Israel. He could have been born on Mars for all I care. Here's what I want to know: Is Fleischer a Zionist? This is the crux of the matter.
The American people are entitled to also know for the sake of our Republic, if Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Feith and Abrams are Zionists. They all hold sensitive positions in the federal government that require national security clearance. If they are Zionists, then, the next question is: Do they have a conflict of interest or even an appearance of a conflict of interest in carrying out the responsibilities of their office? Answers to these questions are imperative.
Zionism is a political, alien-based ideology, global in scope, racially restricted, and with its spiritual headquarters in Tel Aviv, and not Washington, D.C. Zionists aspire to a land-grabbing Greater Israel.
On Aug. 23, 2002, I demanded that Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT), come clean with U.S. Senate about all his Zionist connections. For all the reasons that I gave in that article, and in this one too, Fleischer, and the cited Likudniks should come clean with the American people. Full disclosure of any and all Zionist links by them are long overdue.
As for Chafets, thanks for blowing your
top, pal! Now, see what you've done? You're forcing your fellow
Zionists out into the light of day, where the lovers of our Republic,
like the Sons of Liberty of old, can confront them about their
warmongering agendas.
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/hughes02222003...
Zev Chafets, a columnist for the NY Daily News, who was born in Michigan but voluntarily lived in Israel for 33 years of his life has the gall to call Edward Said a neo-Nazi.
This from someone who enjoys a SECOND HOME on Edward Said's original homeland where he and his family were ethnically cleansed to make room for this selfish chauvinist. Just unbelievable.
And that no one in the mainstream is willing to point out this gross injustice (the victimizer calling his victim a Nazi) just goes to show how biased mainstream America has become in support of Israel.
This from someone who enjoys a SECOND HOME on Edward Said's original homeland where he and his family were ethnically cleansed to make room for this selfish chauvinist. Just unbelievable.
And that no one in the mainstream is willing to point out this gross injustice (the victimizer calling his victim a Nazi) just goes to show how biased mainstream America has become in support of Israel.
Arabs and Jews that were on the land in that area were going to divide the land into two states. Then what happened? Half the land was taken and made into the country known as transjordan, which became Jordan. What happened to the Jews who used to live on that land? Kicked out.
What happened to the Jews who used to live in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Kuwait? Kicked or chased out, or discriminated against so badly they had to leave.
For the hundreds of thousands of arabs who used to live in israel but CHOSE to leave in order to avoid being caught in war that arab nations began (arab leaders called it a "war of extermination"), there were hundreds of thousands of jews who were forced to flee arab countries even if they had nothing to do with israel.
Arab countries that had tens of thousands of jews now have a few dozen.
Jews can't even be citizens of saudia arabia.
It's basically ILLEGAL TO BE JEWISH in saudia arabia or jordan or the west bank or gaza, unless you live in secret or in some sort of protection.
YEt in israel, almost 20% of ISRAELI CITIZENS who have full voting rights and work whatever jobs they want are muslim. Israel didn't kick them out. Refugees of war were due more to war than to israel doing anything.
Israel is a democracy, and the only thing it does different is that when a jew in the world needs a new country to live in, israel opens its arms. Why was such a thing necessary? Look at the past 200 years of how jews have been treated around the world and try to figure out it. Zionism was to establish a safe home for jews, it wasn't about hurting anyone else. That's why there are so many non-jews who are israeli citizens. The same cannot be said for nations like jordan and saudia arabia, where if you're a citizen, you better not even think about being jewish.
Those of you who lash out at zionism, look at WHY zionism was needed. It was about establishing a homeland for a people that have been kicked around left and right for a long time, a people who have contributed a LOT to this world yet have constantly been scapegoated and harrassed. Do you realize there are only around 14 million jews on earth right now? Jews have been around longer than christians and muslims, yet there are about a billion christians (give or take), a billion muslims (give or take), and only 14 million jews. And yet jews have constantly been scapegoated. I'm not talking about your cozy neighborhoods in san francisco. I'm talking about globally, for centuries (if not longer).
Jews are not just members of a religion. They are a nation. The jewish nation has been kicked around forever, wiped out, exterminated, harrassed. Know what it was like to be jewish in eastern europe in the 1900's? Do you realize that even in the 1980's it was still more or less LEGAL to discriminate against jews in russia? zionism was to create a jewish homeland in an area that was NOT yet an established country, in an area that had plenty of room for growth and development.
Attacking the idea of zionism is insane. Blame the behaviour of planet earth for people thinking that jews needed a homeland. And lying and saying that zionism is "racism" is idiotic considering no "race" of people is actually discriminated against. Special treatment is given to jews. SO what? Why are you so upset that after everything that's happened to jews over the last few hundred years, there is finally one TINY country no bigger than the state of rhode island or new jersey that gives special immigration rights to jews? Every country on earth has immigration policies that favor one group over another. If you're canadian, it's infinitely easier to get a work visa or immigrate to australia than if you're american. So is australia now an anti-american racist state? What kind of nonsense is this? Israel's government gives equal voting rights to every single citizen of the country. Anyone of any nationality can run for government and/or vote for whomever they want. Israel has had a female leader! nations right around the corner don't even let females drive a damn car! How dare some of you run around protesting against israel while intentionally ignoring horrible actions taken by people right around the corner, and those same people attack israel constantly and try to kill it, and you cheer them on!
In Israel, you can be a gay male and be ok. Right down the "street" in Jordan, the government can kill you for being gay! Is that ok with you because it's arabs doing it? In Israel you can be muslim and vote and be a part of the government (yes, there are muslims in israel's government). In Saudia Arabia, you can't even be Jewish and a citizen, let alone be Jewish and vote! Oh, wait a second, what voting? My mistake!
Israel has freedom of the press, which is why you hear dissenting views. People of different opinions voice stuff. Many arab countries have the media controlled by the government, so what they want to say becomes "fact." And by the way, "Palestinian" media is a joke. They blame 100% of everything on israel. THey never take responsibility for their own actions. Every single time israel and some armed palestinians fight, the palestinian media claims that the palestinians were unarmed. You have two sides, and the israel side offers VARYING OPINIONS. Many israelis think the "occupation" should end. Many think it CAN'T end as long as lunatics like hamas are still attacking israel and have made it clear that they will keep right on attacking until israel ceases to exist. WHereas the palestinians never seem to say anything about their own shitty leadership, don't seem to realize that starting their latest intifada has accomplished nothing but ruin good chances they had at a state anytime soon, and don't seem to realize that their support of hamas, who are fighting to kill every last jew (hamas are fighting the "occupation" but I assume you are aware that they officially state that everything jew-owned in that entire region, whether it be land or an apartment, is "occupied" in their eyes, no matter who legally bought the home or anything), doesn't help them, either.
Just because people are the underdog in a fight doesn't mean they're the good guys. Sorry if that ruins the myth.
Over 50% of palestinians support hamas' idea that israel must be destroyed. So try to use LOGIC and explain why israel should hear that and say "ok, well in that case we'll remove our military forces and allow you to build up so you can destroy us!"
And, the idea that if israel withdrew anyway palestinians and hamas would magically reform and suddenly decide that they are ok with having israel and a jewish state as a neighbor is RIDICULOUS and defies any historical logic. Maybe YOU would do that, sitting in your comfortable apartment wondering which starbucks coffee to order as you meet your friends before going to see a movie. But brainwashed lunatic asshole palestinians who are taught from birth that jews are evil and exist on earth to do the work of the devil aren't about to change any time soon.
Does every palestinian want to kill "all" the jews? of course not.
Do a LOT of palestinians support the hamas idea that israel must be destroyed and ruled by muslims? Yes. A LOT feel that way. That's the problem, people.
Bottom line: criticize israel however you want, the fact is that their number one goal from day 1 till now and beyond is to exist and be safe and be a good country.
Bottom line: if you "support the palestinian cause" you should understand that a SIZABLE percentage of palestinians have a cause of killing every jew until israel dies and can be taken over by military force, at which time jews there would be slaughtered.
If you want to "support the palestinian cause" you should try to find one IN PALESTINE or IN LOCAL ARAB COUNTRIES that revolves around establishing a state for them and NOT actually hurting israel. Good luck in finding such a thing.
It'll be really nice when one day on this planet jews aren't singled out for trying to LIVE and not have to worry about dying for being jewish.
1800's and 1900's - europe harrasses and then tries to exterminate it's jews.
1900's and 2000's - the middle east harrases and then palestinian top organizations like hamas exist to kill the jews, and people around the world yell "support the palestinians!"
Again, I repeat, just beacuse people are oppressed doesn't mean they're the good guys. Palestinians are oppressed because their leaders and POPULAR organizations are murderous sick evil fiends. What if democratic, honest, non-crazed leaders were head of the palestinians? THey'd have had a state about 500 times by now. Why didn't arabs form a palestinian state in 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 or 1966? And after israel took additional land in war (arab nations were set to try to destroy israel once again, that's why they booted U.N. troops out and put hundreds of thousands of troops on israel's border, getting ready to attack), palestinian "leadership" in the 1960's refused to agree that israel should not die, in teh 1970's refused to agree that israel should be left alone, in the 1980's refused to agree that isarel must die, and FINALLY, in the 1990's, after decades of sick terrorist attacks against jews and israelis in and out of israel failed to work, arafat finally realized that he needed a new ploy, and he got a new Public Relations department, and tried to fool the world by claiming that now he agrees israel should exist and all he wants is freedom for his poor, innocent, lovable downtrodden people. Unfortunately, the world seems to have a short memory. They expected israel to hear that and INSTANTLY say "ok, we believe you, this is terrific, you don't need to SHOW us that you mean it, just SAYING it is more than enough!" and turned against israel even more than ever.
NEWSFLASH, people. When an enemy tries to kill you for decade after decade after decade, and hates you so much that they're willing to INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people, even go to the damn OLYMPICS and gather your olympic athetes and slaughter them, and then after decades finally SAYS "ok I just want peace, don't be mean to me!" and yet does nothing to actually SHOW that he's changed, there is NO reason to actually believe the person! especially when they keep right on telling their people the same old stuff. Why did arafat quit the 2000/2001 land for peace negotiations and instead urge his dumbass people to start another intifada? What has the intifada accomplished other than getting ariel sharon elected and making life 500 times worse for palestinians?
Meanwhile, hamas, a sick organization of lunatic killers, is the most popular palestinian organization, and is ready to try to take over political power as the leader of the palestinians. That's their goal, and they seem to have a LOT of support.
The Israeli army is not very nice. I guess after people try to kill you, your mother, your sons, your daughters and your brothers for a long time, you don't become very nice.
By the way, how come when hundreds of thousands of jews were war refugees, israel took them in, even though many of them had to live in tents for a long time (since arab countries stole their money) before they could work long enough to save enough money to actually get a home and live like a normal citizen... and how come when hundreds of thousands of arabs were war refugees, arab nations REJECTED them, kept them living as refugees, and just kept trying to attack israel? And even when they got sick of attacking israel (like egypt and jordan eventually did), those arab countries STILL rejected their arab brothers?
There have been refugees in almost all major multi-country wars fought on this planet, and almost all refugees have been resettled in their own or their neighboring countries. How come arabs REJECTED THEIR OWN refugees from wars THEY started, refused to form a state of "palestine" from 1948 to 1967 when they had FULL 100% CONTROL of that land, and just focused on killing off the tiny jewish state?
It's EASY to just say "israel occupies palestinian land, tell israel to stop and everything will be ok!" It's easy and ignorant.
It TAKES MORE TIME to actually learn a balanced perspective and see that the real problem is that killing israel was always more important to the people in charge than setting up a new arab state or accepting refugees.
Why didn't arab countries accept the arab refugees? Two reasons. (1) that would have ended the "refugee problem" and then there's no more problem! other than the problem of having a tiny jewish state. after all, what right does a JEW have at controlling anything! Only arabs/muslims should have that right! and (2) the palestinians were assholes. that's why they didn't want them. palestinians gave king hussein lots of problems, same with other nations nearby. Sorry. It's true. Read about what happened between Jordan and the Palestinians in Black September. Palestinians got mad at jordan for not wanting to kill israel anymore and caused so much trouble that jordan's army laid the smack down on their asses.
As for TODAY, if you want to solve the problem (well, you can't, but if you want to fill voids in your lame life and feel involved), you shouldn't rally against israel or rally "for palestinians" you should urge the U.N. to establish some sort of DEMOCRATIC, FAIR, NON-INSANE leadership for palestinians, and let THEM guide the destiny of the palestinian people for a change. And they need to wipe out hamas and hezbollah, or at least be able to prevent those lunatics from getting at jews to kill. Once palestinians are civil and not ruled by a fringe lunatic extremist mindset, and actual lunatic groups can be controlled, israel won't have to bother with their lame asses anymore and can focus on just existing and thriving like it wants to.
Later.
What happened to the Jews who used to live in Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Kuwait? Kicked or chased out, or discriminated against so badly they had to leave.
For the hundreds of thousands of arabs who used to live in israel but CHOSE to leave in order to avoid being caught in war that arab nations began (arab leaders called it a "war of extermination"), there were hundreds of thousands of jews who were forced to flee arab countries even if they had nothing to do with israel.
Arab countries that had tens of thousands of jews now have a few dozen.
Jews can't even be citizens of saudia arabia.
It's basically ILLEGAL TO BE JEWISH in saudia arabia or jordan or the west bank or gaza, unless you live in secret or in some sort of protection.
YEt in israel, almost 20% of ISRAELI CITIZENS who have full voting rights and work whatever jobs they want are muslim. Israel didn't kick them out. Refugees of war were due more to war than to israel doing anything.
Israel is a democracy, and the only thing it does different is that when a jew in the world needs a new country to live in, israel opens its arms. Why was such a thing necessary? Look at the past 200 years of how jews have been treated around the world and try to figure out it. Zionism was to establish a safe home for jews, it wasn't about hurting anyone else. That's why there are so many non-jews who are israeli citizens. The same cannot be said for nations like jordan and saudia arabia, where if you're a citizen, you better not even think about being jewish.
Those of you who lash out at zionism, look at WHY zionism was needed. It was about establishing a homeland for a people that have been kicked around left and right for a long time, a people who have contributed a LOT to this world yet have constantly been scapegoated and harrassed. Do you realize there are only around 14 million jews on earth right now? Jews have been around longer than christians and muslims, yet there are about a billion christians (give or take), a billion muslims (give or take), and only 14 million jews. And yet jews have constantly been scapegoated. I'm not talking about your cozy neighborhoods in san francisco. I'm talking about globally, for centuries (if not longer).
Jews are not just members of a religion. They are a nation. The jewish nation has been kicked around forever, wiped out, exterminated, harrassed. Know what it was like to be jewish in eastern europe in the 1900's? Do you realize that even in the 1980's it was still more or less LEGAL to discriminate against jews in russia? zionism was to create a jewish homeland in an area that was NOT yet an established country, in an area that had plenty of room for growth and development.
Attacking the idea of zionism is insane. Blame the behaviour of planet earth for people thinking that jews needed a homeland. And lying and saying that zionism is "racism" is idiotic considering no "race" of people is actually discriminated against. Special treatment is given to jews. SO what? Why are you so upset that after everything that's happened to jews over the last few hundred years, there is finally one TINY country no bigger than the state of rhode island or new jersey that gives special immigration rights to jews? Every country on earth has immigration policies that favor one group over another. If you're canadian, it's infinitely easier to get a work visa or immigrate to australia than if you're american. So is australia now an anti-american racist state? What kind of nonsense is this? Israel's government gives equal voting rights to every single citizen of the country. Anyone of any nationality can run for government and/or vote for whomever they want. Israel has had a female leader! nations right around the corner don't even let females drive a damn car! How dare some of you run around protesting against israel while intentionally ignoring horrible actions taken by people right around the corner, and those same people attack israel constantly and try to kill it, and you cheer them on!
In Israel, you can be a gay male and be ok. Right down the "street" in Jordan, the government can kill you for being gay! Is that ok with you because it's arabs doing it? In Israel you can be muslim and vote and be a part of the government (yes, there are muslims in israel's government). In Saudia Arabia, you can't even be Jewish and a citizen, let alone be Jewish and vote! Oh, wait a second, what voting? My mistake!
Israel has freedom of the press, which is why you hear dissenting views. People of different opinions voice stuff. Many arab countries have the media controlled by the government, so what they want to say becomes "fact." And by the way, "Palestinian" media is a joke. They blame 100% of everything on israel. THey never take responsibility for their own actions. Every single time israel and some armed palestinians fight, the palestinian media claims that the palestinians were unarmed. You have two sides, and the israel side offers VARYING OPINIONS. Many israelis think the "occupation" should end. Many think it CAN'T end as long as lunatics like hamas are still attacking israel and have made it clear that they will keep right on attacking until israel ceases to exist. WHereas the palestinians never seem to say anything about their own shitty leadership, don't seem to realize that starting their latest intifada has accomplished nothing but ruin good chances they had at a state anytime soon, and don't seem to realize that their support of hamas, who are fighting to kill every last jew (hamas are fighting the "occupation" but I assume you are aware that they officially state that everything jew-owned in that entire region, whether it be land or an apartment, is "occupied" in their eyes, no matter who legally bought the home or anything), doesn't help them, either.
Just because people are the underdog in a fight doesn't mean they're the good guys. Sorry if that ruins the myth.
Over 50% of palestinians support hamas' idea that israel must be destroyed. So try to use LOGIC and explain why israel should hear that and say "ok, well in that case we'll remove our military forces and allow you to build up so you can destroy us!"
And, the idea that if israel withdrew anyway palestinians and hamas would magically reform and suddenly decide that they are ok with having israel and a jewish state as a neighbor is RIDICULOUS and defies any historical logic. Maybe YOU would do that, sitting in your comfortable apartment wondering which starbucks coffee to order as you meet your friends before going to see a movie. But brainwashed lunatic asshole palestinians who are taught from birth that jews are evil and exist on earth to do the work of the devil aren't about to change any time soon.
Does every palestinian want to kill "all" the jews? of course not.
Do a LOT of palestinians support the hamas idea that israel must be destroyed and ruled by muslims? Yes. A LOT feel that way. That's the problem, people.
Bottom line: criticize israel however you want, the fact is that their number one goal from day 1 till now and beyond is to exist and be safe and be a good country.
Bottom line: if you "support the palestinian cause" you should understand that a SIZABLE percentage of palestinians have a cause of killing every jew until israel dies and can be taken over by military force, at which time jews there would be slaughtered.
If you want to "support the palestinian cause" you should try to find one IN PALESTINE or IN LOCAL ARAB COUNTRIES that revolves around establishing a state for them and NOT actually hurting israel. Good luck in finding such a thing.
It'll be really nice when one day on this planet jews aren't singled out for trying to LIVE and not have to worry about dying for being jewish.
1800's and 1900's - europe harrasses and then tries to exterminate it's jews.
1900's and 2000's - the middle east harrases and then palestinian top organizations like hamas exist to kill the jews, and people around the world yell "support the palestinians!"
Again, I repeat, just beacuse people are oppressed doesn't mean they're the good guys. Palestinians are oppressed because their leaders and POPULAR organizations are murderous sick evil fiends. What if democratic, honest, non-crazed leaders were head of the palestinians? THey'd have had a state about 500 times by now. Why didn't arabs form a palestinian state in 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 or 1966? And after israel took additional land in war (arab nations were set to try to destroy israel once again, that's why they booted U.N. troops out and put hundreds of thousands of troops on israel's border, getting ready to attack), palestinian "leadership" in the 1960's refused to agree that israel should not die, in teh 1970's refused to agree that israel should be left alone, in the 1980's refused to agree that isarel must die, and FINALLY, in the 1990's, after decades of sick terrorist attacks against jews and israelis in and out of israel failed to work, arafat finally realized that he needed a new ploy, and he got a new Public Relations department, and tried to fool the world by claiming that now he agrees israel should exist and all he wants is freedom for his poor, innocent, lovable downtrodden people. Unfortunately, the world seems to have a short memory. They expected israel to hear that and INSTANTLY say "ok, we believe you, this is terrific, you don't need to SHOW us that you mean it, just SAYING it is more than enough!" and turned against israel even more than ever.
NEWSFLASH, people. When an enemy tries to kill you for decade after decade after decade, and hates you so much that they're willing to INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people, even go to the damn OLYMPICS and gather your olympic athetes and slaughter them, and then after decades finally SAYS "ok I just want peace, don't be mean to me!" and yet does nothing to actually SHOW that he's changed, there is NO reason to actually believe the person! especially when they keep right on telling their people the same old stuff. Why did arafat quit the 2000/2001 land for peace negotiations and instead urge his dumbass people to start another intifada? What has the intifada accomplished other than getting ariel sharon elected and making life 500 times worse for palestinians?
Meanwhile, hamas, a sick organization of lunatic killers, is the most popular palestinian organization, and is ready to try to take over political power as the leader of the palestinians. That's their goal, and they seem to have a LOT of support.
The Israeli army is not very nice. I guess after people try to kill you, your mother, your sons, your daughters and your brothers for a long time, you don't become very nice.
By the way, how come when hundreds of thousands of jews were war refugees, israel took them in, even though many of them had to live in tents for a long time (since arab countries stole their money) before they could work long enough to save enough money to actually get a home and live like a normal citizen... and how come when hundreds of thousands of arabs were war refugees, arab nations REJECTED them, kept them living as refugees, and just kept trying to attack israel? And even when they got sick of attacking israel (like egypt and jordan eventually did), those arab countries STILL rejected their arab brothers?
There have been refugees in almost all major multi-country wars fought on this planet, and almost all refugees have been resettled in their own or their neighboring countries. How come arabs REJECTED THEIR OWN refugees from wars THEY started, refused to form a state of "palestine" from 1948 to 1967 when they had FULL 100% CONTROL of that land, and just focused on killing off the tiny jewish state?
It's EASY to just say "israel occupies palestinian land, tell israel to stop and everything will be ok!" It's easy and ignorant.
It TAKES MORE TIME to actually learn a balanced perspective and see that the real problem is that killing israel was always more important to the people in charge than setting up a new arab state or accepting refugees.
Why didn't arab countries accept the arab refugees? Two reasons. (1) that would have ended the "refugee problem" and then there's no more problem! other than the problem of having a tiny jewish state. after all, what right does a JEW have at controlling anything! Only arabs/muslims should have that right! and (2) the palestinians were assholes. that's why they didn't want them. palestinians gave king hussein lots of problems, same with other nations nearby. Sorry. It's true. Read about what happened between Jordan and the Palestinians in Black September. Palestinians got mad at jordan for not wanting to kill israel anymore and caused so much trouble that jordan's army laid the smack down on their asses.
As for TODAY, if you want to solve the problem (well, you can't, but if you want to fill voids in your lame life and feel involved), you shouldn't rally against israel or rally "for palestinians" you should urge the U.N. to establish some sort of DEMOCRATIC, FAIR, NON-INSANE leadership for palestinians, and let THEM guide the destiny of the palestinian people for a change. And they need to wipe out hamas and hezbollah, or at least be able to prevent those lunatics from getting at jews to kill. Once palestinians are civil and not ruled by a fringe lunatic extremist mindset, and actual lunatic groups can be controlled, israel won't have to bother with their lame asses anymore and can focus on just existing and thriving like it wants to.
Later.
Since that little nazi folk singer sang her little song for Palestine...
after lifting the melody from Bob Dylan...
here's Bob Dylan's song for Israel.
Called "Neighborhood Bully."
Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.
He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.
after lifting the melody from Bob Dylan...
here's Bob Dylan's song for Israel.
Called "Neighborhood Bully."
Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.
He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network