BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Peace
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 01:45 AM

No, Carol. A question that's inconvenient for you is not the post of someone who's trolling. Both questions are ones you have not answered. Get to the cut and paste. I'm sure they will not be simple answers despite both of them being simple questions. Convolute and conflate.

You ignore the killings done by Palestinians; you write that off as what, Carol? In your hatred of Israel and millions of people who live there, you allow your hatred to dictate pages and pages of tripe in support of what I perceive to be racism. You can call it what you want, but here's a person who doesn't buy into your reasoning.

You don't blame any nation except your own and Isreal. Your hatred of Jews is thinly veiled by your "excuse everything suicide bombers do because Israel is bad" threnody. You do not care that Israeli kids die in the name of what, Carol? And your husband disingenuously pretends that Arafat doesn't have the money.

I used to think you were an ardent defender of human rights. I see now that you are, as long as those rights don't belong to Jewish people who live in their homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 01:15 AM

Bill Hahn, I've given my real name here in this thread. I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up real names.

It is a public forum, as you say, and I'm just as entitled to address a fellow poster in the manner of my choosing ase you are. I didn't say my response to brucie was private. I said it's none of your business.

brucie, maybe it is a fair point. But trolling is trolling. You're just refreshing this thread every time it's gone off the page for a couple of days so you can watch the shit fly for the fun of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Peace
Date: 01 Aug 04 - 12:39 AM

I think the question about the $300,000,000 is a fair one.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 31 Jul 04 - 11:38 PM

Well--Carol C--I do not believe I ever made the references you mentioned. Given the length of the thread I can understand your missing or mistaking a comment by various folks---though given your obsessiveness it does seem hard to believe. Perhaps I stand corrected---though I doubt it---but if so you will surely make note of it.
       As to privacy or your personal note (as you say it is) of your "Fuck You" statement--- then you should send it privately. This is a public forum and you have reached your, I am sure, most admiring public in the most impressive manner with your eloquence.

By the way---I use my name:

Bill Hahn
(who also likes fair play, equality with justice, and all the other things you espouse---but in a spirit of historical background and realism---and yes--bless the ACLU)

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jul 04 - 12:22 AM

Here's the difference between a human rights organization and someone with a political agenda...

Human rights organizations fight for and protect the civil rights of human beings (all human beings) when the people whose job it is to fight for and protect the civil rights of hunan beings find it politically inexpedient to do so.

Here's a for instance:

Some people consider the ACLU to be a "radical left-wing" organization. However the ACLU was willing to act on behalf of Jonathan Pollard when even Senator Leiberman was not willing to do so. The human rights organizations will protect and fight for people, for no reason other than the fact that they are human beings, when no one else will. And that's the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Peace
Date: 31 Jul 04 - 12:10 AM

Poor baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Jul 04 - 12:08 AM

Take it however you like brucie. I don't concern myself too much with trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 11:18 PM

Why, thank you, Carol. I'm on cloud nine lately, and I'll just take that as a compliment.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 09:04 PM

Bill H, here's one for you...

Earlier in the thread, you were wondering something along the lines of "where's the Palestinians' Ghandi or Martin Luther King".

When you or any of the other few thousand people I've heard or read ask that question, you are linking the situation that the Palestinians find themselves in to the situations that the Blacks in the US South found themselves in during the period of US segregation and the people of India during the colonial period there, and the conditions they were subjected to that reqired a Martin Luther King or a Ghandi. The question I keep finding myself asking is this... where's Israel's Abraham Lincoln?

My "fuck you" response is between me and brucie, and it's none of your business.

Little Brother... no, those groups are not radical, left-wing organizations. They are human rights organizations. Just like the groups that worked for civil rights for Blacks in the US were human rights organizations, and the groups that fought against apartheid in South Africa were human rights organizations, and all of the other organizations around the world that fight for human rights are human rights organizations. During the period of segregation in the US South, civil rights workers like Martin Luther King were labled "radical" and "left wing". I'd say that label says a lot more about the mindset of those who throw it around than it does about those who are being labled.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 08:02 PM

Carol, all the groups you bookmarked are radical left wing groups all with an axe to grind. -LB

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 06:58 PM

Gee---Carol C. I am staying out of this nonsensical brouhaha as said---going nowhere and returning to the alien planet from which I emigrated in a galaxy far away.   However---your eloquence is just so wonderful to behold. I mean "Fuck You"---what a wonderful debating point. Perhaps you might forward it to the candidates to use in any debates---always a crowd pleaser and a winner when there is nothing else left to say.

My thanks for dedicating an entire length of cyberspace to me in your obsessive rantings. Much appreciatred. Who was it ==P T Barnum---any publicity is good publicity?   Glad you did not dedicate the obscenity to me---bet you will soon though.

Here I thought the Rev. Al was over the top many times---but always clever. Looks like we have a winner in you Carol. Too bad Abe Lincoln is gone---he could have used you for a speechwriter---"Fourscore and seven years ago ---hell who cares---fuck you all". Ah, would that Abe had your input.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 05:03 PM

I don't think I would be boo'd off the stage if I was speaking in front of any of these Jewish organizations. Especially considering the fact that a lot of the information I post on this subject comes from them:

http://www.nimn.org/
http://www.btselem.org/
http://www.batshalom.org/english/batshalom/index.html
http://www.btvshalom.org/newmem/index.cgi?refer=googlem3
http://www.refusersolidarity.net/
http://www.jfjfp.org/
http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resources/other_israel/muhamad.html
http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm
http://www.jatonyc.org/

However, if you would like to see this thread drop off the page, I suggest you take that up with brucie, since he's the one who keeps refreshing it just for shits and giggles.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 04:23 PM

I'm sure that a Jewish group would have much to take issue with with what she has said. But if she is speaking in front of them by invitation and if they booed her off the stage then that would prove that the people who booed were as rude and igornant as you are. I don't believe that you are speaking for many people when you behave so rudely and so insultingly.

Martin Gibson said.....

Anyone who reads this CarolC Israel hating crap and believes any of it I find kind of pathetic.

A person who takes so much time and is so obsessive for the cause against Israel and is so supportive of anything and everything Palestinian is a mental case.

I would love to see her in front of ANY Jewish group at any synagogue spewing her crap. I'm sure she would be boo'd off the stage. Anyone who reads this CarolC Israel hating crap and believes any of it I find kind of pathetic.

A person who takes so much time and is so obsessive for the cause against Israel and is so supportive of anything and everything Palestinian is a mental case.

I would love to see her in front of ANY Jewish group at any synagogue spewing her crap. I'm sure she would be boo'd off the stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Once Famous
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 04:02 PM

Anyone who reads this CarolC Israel hating crap and believes any of it I find kind of pathetic.

A person who takes so much time and is so obsessive for the cause against Israel and is so supportive of anything and everything Palestinian is a mental case.

I would love to see her in front of ANY Jewish group at any synagogue spewing her crap. I'm sure she would be boo'd off the stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 02:18 PM

Here's some more:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer230/230_beinin.html

On July 11, 1948, Aharon Cohen, director of the Arab Affairs Department of the socialist-Zionist Mapam party in Israel, received a carbon copy of a military intelligence report. Israel, a state less than two months old, was embroiled in a war with neighboring Arab states that would last until 1949. . Cohen was upset to read the report's conclusion that 70 percent of these Arabs had fled due to "direct, hostile Jewish operations against Arab settlements" by Zionist militias, or the "effect of our hostile operations on nearby (Arab) settlements."[1] One month before Cohen received this report, Mapam's political committee had issued a resolution opposing "the tendency to expel the Arabs from the Jewish state," in response to Cohen's warnings that such operations were taking place.

Over the course of Arab-Jewish fighting between 1947 and 1949, well over 700,000 Palestinians were made refugees, the majority of them by direct expulsion or the fear of expulsion or massacre. The largest single expulsion occurred after Israeli conquest of the towns of Lydda and Ramla in the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv corridor during July 9-18, 1948. Some 50,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes in these towns by Israeli forces whose deputy commander was Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of Israel from 1974-1977 and 1992-1995. Some two dozen massacres of Palestinians were perpetrated by pre-state Zionist militias and Israeli forces, the most infamous of them on April 9-10, 1948, at the village of Deir Yassin.

Yet after the war, it was Mapam's prescription for the conduct of Israeli forces—rather than the reality of expulsion—that became official Israeli history, and eventually, came to define the Jewish Israeli collective memory of what happened in 1948. For decades, the state of Israel, and traditional Zionist historians, argued that the Palestinian Arabs fled on orders from Arab military commanders and governments intending to return behind the guns of victorious Arab armies which would "drive the Jews into the sea." Consequently, the Zionist authorities would admit little or no responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. This was not due to lack of adequate information. Ample evidence from Zionist sources from the period of the 1948 war and immediately afterwards indicates that members of the military and political elite, secondary leaders and intellectuals close to them knew very well what happened to the Palestinian Arabs in 1948, to say nothing of rank-and-file soldiers and kibbutz members who actually expelled Palestinians, expropriated their lands and destroyed their homes. But soon after the fighting, Zionist and Israeli state officials began to consolidate an official discourse that enabled most Israeli Jews to "forget" what they once "knew"—that during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war a large number of Palestinian Arabs were ethnically cleansed from the territories that became the state of Israel."


http://www.angeltowns.com/members/palestine/articles/Morris.htm

"Shlaim, in his well-argued, generally well-founded book had maintained that (a) years of Zionist-Hashemite contacts and shared political interests had resulted, in 1946-47, in the conclusion of an unwritten agreement between the leadership of the Yishuv and 'Abdallah, king of Jordan, not to fight each other but to split Palestine between them, with the Hashemites (rather than the Palestinians) receiving what is today called the West Bank, and eventually to make peace; (b) in early 1948, Britain tacitly approved the Yishuv-Hashemite agreement by supporting a Jordanian takeover of the West Bank (rather than the creation in that territory of an independent, Husayni-led Palestinian state, as the UN General Assembly had ruled), and cautioned 'Abdallah not to attack the Jewish state; (c) the Yishuv-Hashemite agreement, while somewhat shaken, in effect weathered the Jewish-Palestinian battles of November 1947-May 1948, and resulted in limited and indecisive warfare between the Israel Defence Forces and Jordan's army, the Arab Legion, in May 1948-April 1949; and (d) following the war, 'Abdallah wanted to reach peace with Israel but due to the internal weaknesses of his position and Israeli unwillingness to make concessions, no peace treaty was achieved...

...The real question about the Jewish Agency-Hashemite agreement is not whether it existed but what happened to it in the course of the Israeli-Jordanian battles of May-July 1948. Clearly, it partially unravelled in April 1948 under the impact of the Haganah's military successes, the gradual disintegration of Palestinian society, and the Dayr Yasin massacre. 'Abdallah felt unable to stand aside or to break ranks publicly with the other Arab leaders.

But did he really renege on the agreement? ...On 10 May 1948 Ben-Gurion sent Golda Meir to meet 'Abdallah once again in a last-ditch effort to avert a Yishuv-Hashemite clash. Returning to Tel Aviv, she reported to the Mapai Central Committee: "We met [on 10 May] amicably. He is very worried and looks terrible. He did not deny that there had been talk and understanding between us about a desirable arrangement, namely that he would take the Arab part [of Palestine]. . . . "But 'Abdallah had said that he could now, on 10 May, only offer the Jews "autonomy" within an enlarged Hashemite kingdom. He added that while he was not interested in invading the areas allocated for Jewish statehood, the situation was volatile. But he voiced the hope that Jordan and the Yishuv would conclude a peace agreement once the dust had settled.(16)

On 15 May the Arab Legion, along with the other Arab armies, invaded Palestine. But far from unravelling, the agreement, at least in 'Abdallah's mind, appeared to hold fast. 'Abdallah's troops kept meticulously to the 17 November 1947 scenario: At no point in May, or thereafter, did the Arab Legion attack the Jewish state's territory. The Legion occupied the northern half of the West Bank and advanced as far westward as Latrun, Lydda, and Ramla (all UN-allocated Arab areas); and, acceding to local Arab pressures, drove into (Arab) East Jerusalem, essentially to secure the area (and its holy sites, including 'Abdallah's father's tomb on the Temple Mount) against Jewish conquest. But Jerusalem, allocated by the United Nations partition resolution neither to Jew nor to Arab, had not been covered in the Meir-'Abdallah agreement. Moreover, apart from securing the Old City (including conquering its Jewish Quarter), the Legion had refrained from attacking Jewish positions and areas (except for forays around the Mandelbaum Gate and the Notre Dame Monastery designed to safeguard the Legion's line of communication from Ramallah into the city).

No doubt, 'Abdallah was not motivated solely by his adherence to the agreement. His army was small, numbering only some 7,500-9,000 troops at the start of hostilities, and he hardly had enough soldiers to secure the West Bank, let alone attempt to conquer Jewish state territory or fight in costly street battles in West Jerusalem. Moreover, the British had warned him against attacking the Jewish state (see below), and he had promised to refrain from doing so.

Before 15 May, various Jewish officials - Yaacov Shimoni, Moshe Shertok (Sharett), etc. - feared that 'Abdallah might attack the Jewish state nonetheless ("Can any Arab be trusted?"). But in effect, when it came to brass tacks, 'Abdallah adhered strictly to the letter and spirit of the agreement. Rather, it was the Jews who broke it when the Haganah/IDF repeatedly attacked the Legion in Latrun (in late May and June), in Lydda-Ramla (in July), and near Tarqumiya (October). It was Ben-Gurion - because he sought to lift the siege of Jerusalem and expand Jewish territorial holdings beyond what the UN had earmarked - who violated it."

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 01:45 PM

Here's some of the documentation on the 1948 war that I promised Bill H and failed to provide:

http://desip.igc.org/The48ArabInvasionDeconstructed.html

"Simha Flapan, perhaps the most accessible of the "revisionist," historians, played an active role during the war of 1948 as a member of Mapam, the United Workers Party. In his landmark book, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities (New York: Pantheon, 1987) Flapan wrote that "like most Israelis, I had always been under the influence of certain myths that had become accepted as historical truth" (p. 8).

Flapan divides his book into seven sections, each addressing a myth associated with the birth of Israel. Examining "Myth Five," Flapan argues that it was not the Arab invasion which brought on war, but rather the decision by the Jewish leadership to declare statehood on May 14. Flapan contends that documents show that the "Arabs had agreed to a last minute American proposal for a three-month truce on the condition that Israel temporarily postpone its Declaration of Independence. Israel's provisional government rejected the American proposal by a slim majority of 6 to 4." (p. 9)

Ethnic Cleansing, 1947

The reason the Americans and the international community were alarmed as May 14 approached was that a calamitous communal war had broken out immediately after passage of the U.N. Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947. In the war between the stronger Jewish forces and the less prepared Arab community, parallels can be drawn to the ethnic cleansing that is going on in Bosnia.

Like the Serbs today, the Jewish forces generally did everything they could to force the Palestinians to flee their cities, towns and villages. The Arab flight which numbered 60,000 by the end of March 1948, increased dramatically after April 9, 1948, the date of the infamous Dir Yassin massacre, when Menachem Begin's Irgun (with the tacit complicity of Ben-Gurion's Haganah) slaughtered more than 100 civilians from a "friendly" Arab village near Jerusalem.

News of the massacre, including cases of rape, spread quickly throughout the Arab community and led to the terrified mass flight of civilians in search of safety. Before the middle of May '48 almost 300,000 Palestinians had fled.

Avoiding Repatriation

One reason that Ben-Gurion opted for Statehood on May 14 despite international opposition was because he understood that if he held back and a truce was effected, a new Israeli State might well be forced to repatriate the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians already made refugees. Moreover, by mid-May, there remained more than 500,000 Palestinians in areas that the Jewish forces controlled or desired for their state. Ben-Gurion had no intention of allowing such a large Arab minority to remain in Israel and therefore he chose war. In the end, more than 750,000 Palestinians were exiled forever from their homes.

Flapan also argues that an unprepared Arab nation entered the war reluctantly. The Arab forces were divided politically and, contrary to myth, they were no match for the Jewish forces in numbers either.

Flapan cites figures which indicate that the combined Arab armies totaled no more than 25,000 troops; including 10,000 Egyptian troops, 4,500 Transjordanian troops and perhaps 3,000 troops from Palestine itself, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon respectively. In contrast, all estimates of front-line Jewish troops, united under a single command, put the number at least at 25,000. In addition, some estimates of Jewish forces are as high as 60,000 or 90,000 more if settlement troops, irregular forces and others are counted. (Flapan, p. 196) With these figures in mind, it is easier to see how Ben-Gurion could gamble on a unilateral declaration of the state of Israel on May 14, and war."

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 11:50 AM

Fuck you brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 06:44 AM

Re the first post to this thread:

In looking back over World Press issues of 2002, I found an article in a Jordanian paper about a UN report, produced by an entirely Arab group, that gives essentially the same figures about the Arab world. I will try to bring it in, and type it up...

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Peace
Date: 30 Jul 04 - 01:40 AM

Does Arafat still have the $300,000,000? Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 08:49 PM

I refer you to this post of mine earlier in this thread (wait a bit for it to load to the specific post):

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=71709&messages=210&page=4&desc=yes#1229306

...and the full version:

http://www.spectacle.org/0601/israel.html

...and to these points in particular:

The Oslo Agreement

57.The Oslo Agreement had positive and negative qualities.

58.On the positive side, this agreement brought Israel to its first official recognition of the Palestinian People and its national leadership and brought the National Palestinian Movement to its recognition of the existence of Israel. In this respect the agreement (and the exchange of letters that preceded it) were of paramount historical significance.

59.In effect, the agreement gave the National Palestinian Movement a territorial base on Palestinian land, the structure of a "state in the making" and armed forces-- facts that would play an important role in the ongoing Palestinian struggle. For the Israelis, the agreement opened the gates to the Arab world and put an end to Palestinian attacks --as long as the agreement was effective.

60.The most substantive flaw in the agreement was that both sides hoped to achieve entirely different objectives. The Palestinians saw it as a temporary agreement paving the way to the end of the occupation, the establishment of a Palestinian State in all the occupied territories. On the other hand, the respective Israeli governments regarded it as a way to maintain the occupation in large sections of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with the Palestinian self-government filling the role of an auxiliary security agency protecting Israel and the settlements.

61.Therefore, Oslo did not represent the beginning of the process to end the conflict but, rather, another new phase of the conflict.

62.Because the expectations of both sides were so divergent and each remained entirely bound to its own national "narrative", every section of the agreement was interpreted differently. Ultimately, many parts of the agreement were not carried out, mainly by Israel (the third withdrawal, the four safe passages, and others).

63.Throughout the period of the "Oslo Process" Israel continued its vigorous expansion of the settlements, primarily by creating new ones under various guises, expanding existing ones, building an elaborate network of "bypass" roads, expropriating land, demolishing houses and uprooting plantations etc. The Palestinians, on their part, used the time to build their strength, both within the framework of the agreement and without it. In fact, the historical confrontation continued unabated under the guise of negotiations and the "Peace Process", which became a proxy for actual peace.

64.In contradistinction to his image, which became more pronounced after his assassination, Yitzhak Rabin kept the conflict alive "in the field", while simultaneously managing the political process to achieve peace, on Israeli terms. As he was a disciple of the Zionist "narrative" and accepted its mythology, he suffered from cognitive dissonance when his hopes for peace clashed with his conceptual world. It appears that he began to internalize some parts of the Palestinian historical narrative only at the very end of his life.

65.The case of Shimon Peres is much more severe. He created for himself an international image of a peacemaker and even designed his language to reflect this image ("the New Middle East") while remaining essentially a traditional Zionist hawk. This became clear in the short and violent period that he served as Prime Minister after the assassination of Rabin and, again, in his current acceptance of the role of spokesman and apologist for Sharon.

66.The clearest expression of the Israeli dilemma was provided by Ehud Barak who came to power completely convinced of his ability to cut the Gordian knot of the historical conflict in one dramatic stroke, in the fashion of Alexander the Great. Barak approached the issue in total ignorance of the Palestinian narrative and with disrespect to its importance. He presented his proposals as ultimatums and was appalled and enraged by their rejection.

67.In the eyes of himself and the Israeli side at large, Barak "turned every stone" and made the Palestinians "more generous offers than any previous Prime Minister". In exchange, he wanted the Palestinians to sign off on "an end to the conflict". The Palestinians considered this a preposterous pretension since Barak was effectively asking them to relinquish their basic national aspiration, such as the Right of Return and sovereignty in East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. Moreover, while Barak presented the claims for the annexation of territories as matter of negligible percentages ("Settlement Blocs"), according to Palestinian calculations this amounted to an actual annexation of 20% of the land beyond the Green Line.

68.In the Palestinian view, they had already made the decisive compromise by agreeing to establish their State within the Green Line, in merely 22% of their historical homeland. Therefore, they could only accept minor border changes in the context of territorial swaps. The traditional Israeli position is that the achievements of the war of 1948 are established facts that cannot be disputed and the compromise required must focus on the remaining 22%.

69.As with most terms and concepts, the word "concession" has different meanings for both sides. The Palestinians believe that they have already "conceded" 78% of their land when they agreed to accept 22% of it. The Israelis believe that they are "conceding" when they agree to "give" the Palestinians parts of those same 22% (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip).

70.The Camp David Summit in the summer of 2000, which was imposed on Arafat against his will, was premature and brought things to a climax. Barak's demands, presented at the summit as Clinton's, were that the Palestinians agree to end the conflict by conceding the Right of Return and the Return itself; to accept complicated arrangements for East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount without achieving sovereignty over them; to agree to large territorial annexations in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to an Israeli military presence in other large areas and to Israeli control over the borders separating the Palestinian State from the rest of the world. No Palestinian leader would ever sign such an agreement and thus the summit ended in deadlock and the termination of the careers of Clinton and Barak.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:45 PM

If that is the case then why are they negotiating with the Palestinians at all and why the Oslo Accords where they agreed to release hundreds of militants back into the territories?

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 02:01 PM

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I'm trying to help you understand the complexity of the situation the Palestinians find themselves in. And you're completely wrong about Hamas being the reason the Palestinians don't have a state. They wouldn't have a state even if there had never been a Hamas or any other Palestinian "terrorist" organizations or activities. It was never the intention of those in power in Israel for the Palestinians to have their own state. The intention has always been for Israel to have as much of the Middle East as it can obatain by any means necessary. That's why there is no Israeli constitution. In order for there to be a constitution, Israel would have to legally define it's borders. Israel is not willing to define its borders because it has no intention to stop expanding its borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:39 PM

Carol, you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say Hamas is their friend and on the other you say they will fight them. Make no mistake about it. Hamas and the other terrorist groups are the reason the Palestinians don't have a state.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 11:00 AM

JtS makes a good point. I wish I had thought to make that point myself. However, the point I was making in my previous post is this... not only do the Palestinians not have the means to fight Hamas at this point, they also don't have an incentive to fight them.

While the majority of Palestinians are willing to live peacefully in their own independent state along side of Israel, each on their own side of the Green Line, unlike Hamas as stated in its charter, there is no one who will help them get their independent state except for Hamas. There is no one who will help them fight for their freedom except for Hamas. They have no one else with the means or the willingness to help them get their freedom.

Israel has removed any incentive the Palestinians would have to fight Hamas. Why should they? They know from experience that Israel will not give them their freedom no matter what they do. Under such circumstances, why would they want to fight the only people who are trying to help them get their freedom?

Israel needs to give the Palestinians an incentive to fight Hamas by giving them the one thing they want that they think Hamas might be able to give them. Their freedom.

Israel can continue to defend itself just as well against Hamas from the Israeli side of the Green Line as is can from within the Occupied Territories. The occupation does not make Israelis safer. It actually puts them in more danger than they would be without the occupation. So ending the occupation and giving the Palestinians their freedom is the best way to protect Israelis. That way, the Palestinians will no longer have any incentive to help Hamas, and they would have the incentive to cooperate with Israel in fighting Hamas. And Israel would still have the IDF to defend its borders (the Green Line).

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:59 AM

Jack, if they don't have a functioning government then why is there a prime minister? And they do have a police force albeit an ineffective one. What makes you think they'll be any better when they have an official state? And your right, Hamas is Israel's problem and they are dealing with it.

LB

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:54 AM

Little Brother, I think she is saying that until Palistine has a functioning government and police for Hamas is Israel's problem. Israel has the guns and the checkpoints.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:43 AM

Carol, your last post has nothing to do with my last statement. We were talking about Hamas, not the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:23 AM

Little Brother, what do they have to fight for?

Continued occupation? Continued expansion of the settlements and confiscation of their land and demolishing of their homes? What do they have to fight for? When they did stop fighting, for two years during the time when they still had hope for some degree of independence from Israel, what did Israel do? It expanded the settlements. Not only that, it increased the rate of settlement expansion. The only thing for them to fight for right now is their freedom. Israel has shown them that being peaceful will not bring them freedom. Israel must give them something to fight for besides their freedom. Right now, to many of them, them it looks like Hamas is in a better position to help them get their freedom than the alternative, since Israel has rendered the alternative completely inefectual.

Do you honestly think that if you were in their shoes, you would not be fighting for your freedom in any way you could? The European Jews who helped bring about Israeli independance used terrorism to help them accomplish their goals. Do you wish that their terrorism had never been rewarded?

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 11:37 PM

Carol, I disagree, The Palestinians should be fighting the Hamas now. Once they have a state why would they want to fight the Hamas.
The time is now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 11:04 PM

Alonzo, you presented me with the Hamas charter. Perhaps I misread your intentions in posting that, but when people do that, I tend to think they want me to think that the Hamas charter is proof that the Palestinians shouldn't be granted their independent state.

I agree that there is a good chance of some continued terrorism after the Palestinians get their state, but at least Israel will have the majority of Palestinians helping them to fight against Hamas, since doing so would also be in defense of the Palestinians' own country.

Little Brother, the extremists on both sides are prolonging the conflict. Hamas did on at least one or two occasions, declare unilateral ceasefires, during which the only violence that was committed was by Israel in targeted assasinations of Palestinians (the last of which resulted in the death of the young child of the target of the assasination, but the target survived). This has happened at least once during the last year. Of course, after two or three targeted assasination attempts, Hamas ended its unilateral ceasefire. If the government of Israel had really wanted Hamas to continue its ceasefire, it would have held off on the targeted assasinations for as long as the unilateral ceasefire held.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:56 PM

My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:44 PM

Hebron is in the occupied West Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:31 PM

Carol, it's really strange that when peace looks near and deals have been made then the Hamas strikes and quickly puts an end to all the talks. It seems that they are the one's that are undermining the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:31 PM

There are plenty of Israeli Jews who want all of the Arabs/Palestinians removed from all of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. You are holding all Palestinians responsible for the attitudes of the most extreme Palestinians. Should we not
also, then, hold all Jews or at least all Israelis responsible for attitudes of their most extreme members?

Actually CarolC, the extremists in Israel who want that are are a very small percentage of the population. Before the only party (Kach) that has advocated that position was made illegal by an act of the Israeli Knesset, they had garnered only about 1/2 of 1% of the vote. In other words, when you refer "plenty of Israeli Jews," you're being deceptive and misleading. The people in Israel who think that way are a tiny fringe.

I've said quite clearly that I want the occupation to end. I want the occupation to end now. The one thing that we both agree on is that the occupation has turned into a disaster for both sides.

When you say that I'm "holding all Palestinians responsible for the attitudes of the most extreme Palestinians," you are putting words in my mouth that were never there. A propaganda tactic that only cheapens your arguement.

What I said, is that Palestinian terrorism started long before the occupation. That is a fact. What I also said was that ending the occupation will not end the attacks on Israel. I said that because that is the stated, and constantly reapeated, policy of a large Palestinian organization whose popular support has been shown to be equal to, if not greater in some places, than that of Arafat's PA. And that, too, is a fact.

You ask: "Should we not also, then, hold all Jews or at least all Israelis responsible for attitudes of their most extreme members?"

Well, clearly, the fact that Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Brigade (a part of Arafat's own Fatah movement) make it a point to randomly target all Israelis -- men, women, children, babies -- with their terrorism, that is what has been happening.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:08 PM

Thank you, Little Brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:07 PM

Alonzo, the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is the best way possible to ensure that Hamas will gain power. The PLO/PA had the support of the majority of Palestinians as long as it looked to the Palestinians like they were going to be granted their independent state. The government of Israel has done everything in its power to undermine the PA, and to cause the Palestinians to lose faith in the ability of the PA and the PLO to bring them what they need and want, which is freedom. The majority of Palestinians do not want to destroy Israel. They want to be free and for Israel to leave them alone in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

The more Israel oppresses the Palestinians, the more powerful Hamas becomes. If Israel wants to ensure that Hamas never gets what it wants, the best thing it can do is to support the moderate Palestinians instead of undermining them, and give them something of their own to fight for, instead of only giving them something (bondage) to fight against

There are plenty of Israeli Jews who want all of the Arabs/Palestinians removed from all of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. You are holding all Palestinians responsible for the attitudes of the most extreme Palestinians. Should we not also, then, hold all Jews or at least all Israelis responsible for attitudes of their most extreme members?

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 10:04 PM

Carol, you seem to have an answer for everything. I'm impressed. Can't say you haven't been doing your homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 09:55 PM

I'll answer Little Brother first.

The Arabs who committed that atrocity were wrong, obviously. Their greivances were legitimate, but their methods were not. Their grievances were that they were having their homes sold out from under them by absentee landlords to the European immigrants who were also disposessing them of their livelihoods.

However, the people who committed that atrocity should have been the ones who were punished for it, not all of the Palestinian people for all time.

Unfortunately, the Arab man who was the leader of the group of Arab extremists who committed that massacre was pardoned by an Englishman who was of Jewish ancestry, and then appointed by him to the position of Mufti, against the wishes of the majority of the Arabs in the region. The Mufti then went on to commit further atrocities against both European Jews, as well as Palestinians. And the Palestinians have been punished ever since for the actions of this man, whom they didn't even want, and who was appointed to his position of power by a Jew. Can you imagine how they might feel pretty victimized by this? Maybe it's time to stop collectively punishing the Palestinians for something that they, collectively, had no control over.

And I do have the historical documentation to back up my assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 09:54 PM

And Carol, besides, Hebron is not part of the occupied territories.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 09:50 PM

Alonzo is very right. These groups don't want a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state living in peace. They want a Palestinian state with no Israel. If the Palestinians are so interested in having their state why don't they do more to wipe these groups out. Not only are they not wiping them out but are funding them in secret. Where do you think a lot of American money given to help rebuild the Palestinians went to? Certainly not to the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 09:41 PM

Carol dear, the occupation has nothing to do with the shootings. Arabs were always attacking Jews in Hebron long before the occupation. Have you ever heard about the 1929 Arab massacre of innocent Jews in Hebron. What was their excuse then??

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 08:09 PM

You've got it the wrong way around, Little Brother. The only reason they are shooting at Israelis is because they want the Israelis to end the occupation. If Israel would end the occupation, the attacks on Israelis would no longer serve any purpose.

I want the occupation to end too. I hope it does, and soon.

However, Palestinian terrorism started long before the occupation began and groups like Hamas have categorically stated that every inch of Israel belongs to them and they will stop at nothing until they have reclaimed every inch of Israel.

May I suggest that you read the Hamas Charter before declaring how and when Palestinian resistance to Israel will stop. Clearly, the Palestinians own words speak for themselves.

The Hamas Charter

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 07:08 PM

Jack, when the arabs were in control of Jerusalem the Jews were forbidden to pray at their holy places and their synagogues were bombed. Israel on the other hand have given them free reign on all their holy places. Do you remember when the terrorists were holed up in a church in Bethlehem the Israeli forces did not attack out of respect for the church. I wonder if they would have chosen the same restraint. The Israelis are not the "barbarians" you make them out to be.

I didn't make anyone out to be a barbarian. I simple explained why the "occupied territories" are called that instead of part of Israel. You asked, I answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM

Where is Israel's Daniel Ellsberg? (Haaretz)   

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=234122&contrassID=assID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=234122

By Akiva Eldar

"Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Department of Defense official who in 1971 leaked classified documents subsequently known as the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, has recently published his memoirs. The book presents evidence showing that for 23 years, five U.S. presidents waged a war (in Indochina) they knew America could never win.

In a tape recording, Lyndon Johnson is heard saying to a friend that he does not believe that the Vietnamese will ever surrender. "At the same time, he sent young men to their deaths," Ellsberg bemoans, reminding us that 58,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 2 million Asian civilians lost their lives in that very war...

...According to Ellsberg, Ariel Sharon's war-on-terror policy is costing the lives of more Israelis than it is saving, and his opinion has significant backing from among the upper echelons of the Israeli establishment. The ongoing decline in moral standards is indeed eroding their strength, but in backrooms, there are still experts who are saying things and even writing papers indicating that top-level political and military officials are knowingly feeding the public with falsehoods. In their assessments of the current situation, no inkling of a basis can be found for the promise that Palestinian terror can be stopped without Israel putting an end to the occupation."

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 06:30 PM

This is what Ami Ayalon, former head of Israeli Shin Bet has to say about ending the occupation:

"I favor unconditional withdrawal from the Territories -- preferably in the context of an agreement, but not necessarily: what needs to be done, urgently, is to withdraw from the Territories. And a true withdrawal, which gives the Palestinians territorial continuity in a Transjordan linked to Gaza, open to Egypt and Jordan. If they proclaim their own state, Israel should be the first to recognize it and to propose state to state negotiations, without conditions, on the basis of the Clinton proposals, to resolve all pending problems."


Here's the whole interview with Ami Ayalon:

http://www.coalitionofwomen4peace.org/articles/ami-ayalon.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 06:22 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) - A major American Muslim charity and seven of its senior officers were charged Tuesday with illegally funneling millions of dollars to support Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization blamed for dozens of deadly suicide bomber attacks in Israel.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A major American Muslim charity and seven of its senior office


According to the indictment, Holy Land's main officers met with other Hamas activists in October 1993 to figure out how to back Hamas and also conceal their true aims from authorities.


``The attendees noted the danger of attracting the terrorist perception, which would undoubtedly compromise their efforts in supporting violent jihad (Muslim holy war),'' the indictment said.


Fund-raising events were held at mosques, conventions, seminars and other programs in which speakers, including some of the Holy Land defendants, ``performed skits and songs which advocated the destruction of the state of Israel and glorified the killing of Jewish people,'' the indictment says.

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 06:12 PM

You've got it the wrong way around, Little Brother. The only reason they are shooting at Israelis is because they want the Israelis to end the occupation. If Israel would end the occupation, the attacks on Israelis would no longer serve any purpose.

IDF stands for Israeli Defense Force meaning they are defending their citizens. If you know a better way then please tell. Why don't you shed some light instead of cursing the darkness?

I already have, about a half dozen times on this thread alone. The answer is...

END THE OCCUPATION

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: Little Brother
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 05:38 PM

You only have the arabs to blame. If they would stop shooting at innocent Israeli civilians these check points would be unnecessary. IDF stands for Israeli Defense Force meaning they are defending their citizens. If you know a better way then please tell. Why don't you shed some light instead of cursing the darkness?

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 05:17 PM

These are the words of a young Israeli Jew who has spent time in the "Occupied Territories", not as a member of the IDF, and a young Israeli Jew who has spent time in Hebron as a member of the IDF...

http://www.refusersolidarity.net/default.asp?content_new=one_story_dt

To the Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz
From Daniel Tsal, ID 7-20015889
Re: My refusal to enlist in the IDF

"I hereby request to be released from mandatory service in the IDF due to reasons of conscience, and to allow me, instead, to do alternative service outside the army. If I should not be enabled to be thus exempted I shall be obliged to refuse service.

I considered this decision in the course of the past half year and made it after much hesitation, with a growing knowledge that no decision I make will be perfect and only as good as possible in the face of the complicated current situation of our country. In-depth study of what has happened and is happening in our region has led me to see that this step of refusal is legitimate and even necessary. It is not an act of subversion directed against the very foundations of democracy. The principles of the "only democracy in the Middle East" have become void of meaning as a result of the trampling of the rights of about three million people, and more indirectly, of the ongoing destruction of the foundations on which the State of Israel is supposed to be based.

During the past few months I have read a great deal on the issue, visited the occupied territories a number of times, volunteered for Halonot – an organization that enables cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian youth and carries out humanitarian work in the occupied territories. I also participated in some Ta'ayush activities and have witnessed my mother's work with CheckpointWatch. Once I witnessed the daily routines of the occupation I realized that I was not living in a civilized country which is waging a legitimate war upon its enemy, but rather, in a country that ethnically segregates between populations, so that some enjoy basic rights while the others are deprived of the most fundamental rights.

In a sense, when visiting checkpoints, I had a harder time watching a "well functioning" one than being present at a "problematic" spot, where IDF soldiers acted more violently than usual and prompted intervention from human rights activists. When I witnessed a boy who had only just finished high school calling the next in line, and with a condescending expression telling him to open his bag, I perceived the silent truth, the truth of the occupation: Nineteen year old boys who dominate an entire population, men, women and children.

I believe that if more Israeli girls and boys, before conscription, would come to the Palestinian villages under the Israeli occupation, the number of draft refusers would increase. A lot more people would realize how one-sided their education through the schools and media has been. A lot less people would accept military service as our obvious duty, and they would, perhaps, see that this army is no longer a "defense force" but has become an occupying force.

In such historical times, a sane individual must rise up against the system that makes the ongoing oppression possible. I have a moral obligation – not a choice but an obligation - to refuse to participate in the occupation and to struggle against the institutions that cancel such basic human rights. Any sane person, who has not yet been wholly overcome by fear and racism, must by dint of his basic humanity refuse to be part of an occupying and oppressive system such as the IDF has become.

Of course I don't for a moment believe that by refusing to be part of the military system I am relieved of responsibility for what is going on here and blameless. But the IDF is the main active tool used by the government in carrying out the above crimes and in continuing this insufferable occupation. And now I am called upon to take active part in that system. I consider every military role – whether it is doing combat service at the checkpoints or working in military offices in Tel Aviv – as complicit with the crime that is being committed here.

For the reasons stated above I hereby request to be released from military service and be allowed to perform alternative service outside the army."

http://www.refusersolidarity.net/default.asp?content_new=shovrim_shtika

Shovrim Shtika - Breaking the Silence: Soldiers Speak Out About their Service in Hebron

"Recently, we were released from active military duty. Hebron was the hardest, most confusing place we served. Until now, each of us dealt with the difficult things we saw there on our own. Our photo albums - souvenirs from the time we spent in Hebron - have remained, until now, sealed on our respective bedroom shelves. Since we were released, we came to realize that these memories are common to all the guys who served alongside us. We decided to speak out. We decided to tell our stories. Hebron is not on another planet; it's an hour's drive from Jerusalem. But Hebron is light years from Tel Aviv. So we decided to bring Hebron to Tel Aviv. Now, its up to you to come, look, and listen. To understand what's going on there...

...If I'm standing at a checkpoint that prevents people from going somewhere, somewhere it's obvious they need to get to, like from the grocery store to their house, and they can't get there because I'm standing in their way, it really doesn't matter how polite I am. I don't have to behave cruelly for it to be unjust. I can be the most courteous person in the world and still be unfair. Because from their point of view, it makes no difference if I'm a nice guy. I still don't let them go home. What difference does it make if I try to be nice? Or humiliate them? The very existence of the checkpoint is humiliating.

As long as I'm doing my duty according to the regulations, something completely legal, I'm doing something that is inflicting pain on people, harming them unnecessarily. I guard, or enable the existence of, 500 Jewish settlers at the expense of 15,000 people under direct occupation in the H2 area and another 140,000-160,000 in the surrounding areas of Hebron. It makes no difference whatsoever how pleasant I am to them or how pleasant my company commander is, it simply… won't make it any better. I will still be their enemy. There will still be a conflict between us. And sometimes, the fact that I may be nice to them will only cause me trouble because then they'll have someone to argue with, someone to turn to. But there is nothing I can tell them. You can't go through the checkpoint because you can't, and that's it!! It's an order, based on security considerations.

As long as you want to protect these 500 people, that's what you have to do. As long as you want to keep these folks in Hebron alive and enable them to go about their existence in a reasonable manner, you have to destroy the reasonable existence of all the rest. There's no alternative. For the most part, these are real security considerations. They're not imaginary. If you want to protect them from being shot at from above, you have to occupy all the hills around them. There are people living on those hills. They have to be subdued, they have to be detained, they have to be hurt at times. But as long as the government has decided that the settlement in Hebron will remain in tact, even without undue cruelty, the cruelty is there, and it doesn't matter whether or not we act nice."

Subject: RE: BS: Mideast: View From the Eye of the Storm
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jul 04 - 04:39 PM

Little Brother, they are not the exception. The Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem have no human rights whatsoever. The Israeli government has power over every single aspect of their daily lives. They are very cruelly oppressed by the government of Israel. This kind of behavior is systematic and calculated to produce a specific result. I challenge you to read the testimonies from the people who have been subjected to this behavior on a daily basis, as well as from the members of the IDF who have spoken out about it.

Would you be willing to live under the conditions that the Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem are subjected to at the hands of the Israeli government? I doubt it. If not, why do you feel Israel has a right to subject others to these conditions?