BS: PEACE in The Middle East.

Subject: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Bert
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 03:14 AM

How about some positive suggestions for peace in the Middle East. Regardless of which side you feel compelled to support, if you post to this thread you must have at least ONE positive suggestion that might bring about peace.
Here are some of mine...

Let us give one side (either side)some land, which they can call their home. There are several sparsely populated and waste lands in The USA and other countries which no one would miss (The Panhandle of Texas, *BIG GRIN*)

Let us (The USA) enforce a truce such as the British did with The Trucial States of Oman.

Or, how about a federation of Israeli and Palestinian States? Kinda like The Good Ole USA, Where each state has some autonomy, but peace and cooperation is maintained by a federation.

AND while this is going on. Let's make "The Media" report only GOOD things about each side. I'm sure that most Palestinians and most Israelis are good people who want peace and cooperation. LET'S hear from these people.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 04:32 AM

Only one chance:
They must understand that freedom may come out of rifle barrels, but peace only out of the human heart.
It is the bitter lesson we have learned with our good European neighbour, the French. For centuries we were hereditary enemies, and now we are forming a union in peace, with a common currency and - mixed batallions, French and German in one unit side by side instead of foghting one another.
May I quote the great Mexican statesman Lic. Benito Juarez: "It's the same between nations and people - the respect for the other one's rights is the peace." (Free translation)

Wilfried

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 05:59 AM

Education, jobs, love your children more than you hate your enemy, and perhaps there would be peace (but dont hold your breath)

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 08:41 AM

Some sincere apologies would be in order.

"We have done wrong to you, because wrong was done to us. We cannot undo what has been done. We can learn to recognise what we have in common, and build on that."

Either side needs to recognise that as the truth, and say it.

And the rest of us need to recognise that we probably are capable of doing things every bit as terrible as both sides have done to each other. And to recognise that friendship does not mean encouraging our friends in their mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 11:25 AM

massive offers of immigration to Palestinians with technical education part of the deal...this would reduce the population pressure....mg

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 11:47 AM

Wilfried, on a small scale, that has also happened in Alaska. Two Indian tribes (the Tlingit and the Haida) in southeast Alaska and on the western coast of Canada historically warred against each other. Today, they share a central council and in white people's minds are virtually the same entity. I don't know how the elders feel about this.

There are many elements of the Israel-Palestine issue that are confusing to me. I understand the original borders of the state of Israel were fairly indefensible, which is one reason they expanded into the West Bank and the Gaza strip and claimed it for settlement. Today some of the rhetoric proposes that if Israel pulls out of the expansion, there will be no more problems. But if that were true, why was war brought to them in the first place? The 1967 war was not waged because of the settlements.

On the other hand, since when have victorious countries been forced to give back the land they won? Look at Texas and New Mexico!

A constructive proposal? Israel to give up the Gaza Strip, keep the West Bank. Jerusalem to be an international city on the order of Mecca with safe conduct pilgrimage passes, governed by Palestine. Palestine to have clearly defined borders and granted national status.

I don't know. I've already said more than I know.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,Roger O'K
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 12:16 PM

Glad to see someone trying to take a positive approach, and sorry if I drift OT, it's just that the opinions being expressed on the war crimes thread drive me crazy.

Wilfried, you're a step in the right direction, but you're still talking about people having one big army rather than two middle-sized ones, and the politico-military version of Say's law states that armies create their own enemies. Now that the Russkies aren't coming across the North German Plain anymore, the Arab/islamic World has been drafted to provide a new threat.

The terrorism of 11 September isn't amenable to military action, it requires working on the grievances which gave rise to it. But Bush, who didn't want to tackle either Saudi Arabia or Israel where these grievances largely lie, had an army and had to find an enemy against whom to fight a war. Hence the bombing of Afghanistan and the creation of a new Vietnam in which he thinks he can use Blair's ground troops as his very own montagnards. Good news for the women of Afghanistan, who are no more than fortuitous collateral beneficiaries of the war, but does anyone believe that the women of Saudi Arabia are liberated?

The French game plan for European politico-military cooperation seems to be based on the realisation that they haven't the resources to run such a policy on their own anymore (Indochina, Algeria, Suez..), but by sidling up to the Germans they can use Germany's economic and military influence to "punch above their weight" as the British like to call their own behaviour in maintaining as much as they can of the influence which they first achieved by widespread militarism and disregard of human rights, sovereignty and other such trivia in the service of mercantilism.

West Germany, to its credit, is regrettably the only country which has really learnt the lessons of the history of the 20th century, and my biggest fear is that under Schröder the "Wir sind wieder wer" (we're someone important again) mentality will lead to that honourable record being contaminated and Germany being drawn into supporting unwarranted initiatives in the name of Europe, rather than Germany's renunciation of militaristic adventurism influencing its partners. So I'm not too keen on this European Army stuff, even though I'm an official in the European Commission. To me it's just a vehicle for "collective unilateralism" rather than genuine multilateral action.

And now - at last - my positive suggestion. The only way forward is to make the UN more effective, as it is the only guarantor of the rule of law in relations between nations. That means supporting it with adequate resources (unlike the fiascos in Rwanda and Srebrenica) to back up the consensus of the nations of the world and the protection of human rights.

I'll keep my bile about Sharon's insult to the highly-regarded Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (not a politician, but a lawyer who has won many cases on behalf of deprived people in national and international courts) for another thread.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 12:28 PM

The Ghost From Valley Forge

I had a dream the other night I didn't understand, A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed, He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low he said:

We fought a revolution to secure our liberty, We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave, In this, the land of the free and home of the brave.

The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you'd always keep, But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep. Your freedom gone - your courage lost - you're no more than a slave, In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun, Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent, Although you have no voice in choosing how the money's spent.

Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate, Your moral values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current "news" in a very biased press, You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the IRS.

Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold You trade your wealth for paper, so life can be controlled. You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God to shame, You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name.

You've given government control to those who do you harm, So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail, Harass your fellow countryman while corrupted courts prevail.

Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they're sworn, Your daughters visit doctors so children won't be born. Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores, And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars.

Can you regain your Freedom for which we fought and died? Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? Or do you wish your children live in fear and be a slave?

Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Republic, and each God-given right! And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came, His words were true, we are not free, and we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God-given right, We only watch and tremble -- too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside in a dream while you're asleep, And wonder what remains of your right he fought to keep. What would be your answer if he called out from the grave? Is this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

Author Unknown

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 01:34 PM

The war in 1967 happened because there was still a pretty general feeling in the area that the process by which Israel had been carved out of the region, with most of the original inhabitants being displaced, could still be reversed.

The analogy was with the Crusader Kingdoms, which turned out to be temporary.

There are still of course many exiled Palestinian who feel that. But all the evidence is that generally people have moved on to recognise that this is one of those historical changes that won't be reversed. At any rate that is now the agreed position of all the Arab nations, including the Palestinian Authority. That's what agreeing on the "Saudi Peace Plan" means. And that plan - the permanent existence of Israel and Palestine alongside each other, and an end to the occupation - is the only viable solution, and it is within reach.

There have been terrible wrongs done, by people on both sides, and to people on both sides. Moving towards peace is going to require that people on both sides recognise that, and understand how the wrong they have done has contributed to bring about the wrong done by them.

In the last resort, all of this is the long-drawn out consequence of European anti-semitism and colonialism.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Amergin
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 01:47 PM

I say give them Canada....

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,Roger O'K
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 03:22 PM

Well said, Master McGrath, and of course the example of Northern Ireland is present in our minds too.

The peace there was largely inspired by John Hume's "single transferable speech", repeated relentlessly over thirty years of non-violence )in spite of severe provocation and considerable risk to his life from enemies on both sides). He cited the European example of Franco-German reconciliation after a century of war as a model for Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland deal involved recognising that each side perceived itself as having been wronged by the other(s), but also realising that they were engaged in a war which no-one could win. It also involved agreeing to use political means in a way which would allow each to make acceptable gains, gains which would be sufficient to allow the guns to become redundant. Trimble nearly wrecked the process by banging on about decommissioning first rather than getting on with the politics, but to be honest the IRA didn't make it easy for anyone. What Sharon has done is to take advantage of Bush's murderously simplistic "war on terror" to interrupt the politics and get back to war, which he has a long history of seeming to prefer.

With the sense of historic grievance which the Palestinians harbour, he's never going to beat them militarily, because if he insists, they will just revert to terrorism. Bin Ladin (anyone remember him? Wasn't catching him supposed to be the justification for the Afghan adventure?) seems to be no more than an opportunist when he invokes the cause of the Palestinians while pursuing what seems to be mainly a Saudi-related anti-American agenda, but he's an example of how it's possible to mobilise a widespread sense of outrage at how the Palestinians are being treated.

The only way forward is to abandon the military approach and create enough space for politics which can give not everything each party wants, but at least hope. As it is, the present emphasis on military "solutions" is leading to the brainwashing of Palestinian kids from their earliest childhood and sowing the dragon's teeth of another forty years of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: bill kennedy
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 03:34 PM

started another thread called 'Great' Britains responibilty.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: alanabit
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 03:53 PM

Few countries that I know of with a strong army have ever propogated terrorist attacks. It is very much the weapon of the weak. There is clearly a good deal less to fear from a strong, viable Palestine than a weak one in which all state authority has been systematically destroyed. When more people on both sides recognise that winning battles in no way compensates for losing the peace, the muderous activities will stop. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of it all at the moment is that the proposals which could lead to a sustainable peace are already up for offer. Palestine can achieve viable statehood and Israel can achieve secure borders. It would be a good time for any small, symbolic gesture by either side to get the ball rolling.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Deda
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 04:04 PM

The Israeli writer Amos Oz said on NPR recently that the outcome is going to be a tragedy, but there are two kindsof tragedy: In Shakespeare's tragedy, the curtain closes on a stage littered with bodies. In Chekov, when the curtain falls everyone is bitter and depressed, but everyone is alive. He's hoping for a Chekov ending -- where everyone is disappointed, everyone is clenching his teeth, everyone thinks that a terrible injustice has been done, but everyone is alive, and likely stay that way until death arrives naturally. I think that the Palestinian (and Saudi!) and Israeli educational texts and curriculum should be subject to veto by the other side, so that neither side is allowed to teach small children that the other guys are satanic forces of evil. But veto power only, not editing, not re-writing, only the power to say "This text can't be taught in its current form."

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 04:15 PM

I hate to sound like a broken record but the Saudi Proposal, though somewhat simplistic, is a good start. A simultanious recognition of Isreal and it's right to exist and the establishment of A Palestinian State comprised of those lands it held at the end of the '67 War. This is what both parties have said all a long that they wanted but each side has been reluctant to act unilaterially.

A normalization of relations between Isreal and her Arab neighbors is also par of the plan which is a very good step toward stability.

I would add a two or three mile DMZ for a period of time and a UN peacekeeping force comprised of members of armed forces of countries other than the US, Isreal, Palestine or her Arab allies who would also man the check points. I would also like to see the US enforce a no fly zone over Palestine for a period of time.

Lastly, there needs to be a Marshall type plan for Palestine not only rebuild what has been destroyed but also assist in building up its economy.

Will all this bring peace? No. But it's a start and it is civilized, pro-human and proactive which are things we haven't seen for the last year or two.

Peace Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 05:14 PM

"Few countries that I know of with a strong army have ever propagated terrorist attacks." Actually I'd be more inclined to say that I can't think of any countries with strong armies which have not resorted to terrorist attacks when it suited them.

But that's a side issue here, and a diversion.

I'm sure there are people, among with Israelis and Palestinians, who see it this way too, the way this thread has been going. Right now on both sides I imagine the are some way from being able to shape things too much. But things can change.

One of things I worry about is the way in which outsiders in a conflict can become even more partisan than people on the ground, in some ways. Cheering on their side, denouncing faint hearts, gravitating towards the most extreme position. In the context of Ireland we've seen some of that, and it hasn't helped. And in the context of this conflict it seems even more prevalent.

The kind of tragic outcome one would want to see would be the kind where the survivors look at each other, and the hatred is purged by pity and a recognition of shared loss; and of a shared responsibility for that loss.

For example, the ending of "Romeo and Juliet":

Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd.

CAPULET
O brother Montague, give me thy hand:
This is my daughter's jointure, for no more
Can I demand.

MONTAGUE
But I can give thee more:
For I will raise her statue in pure gold;
That while Verona by that name is known,
There shall no figure at such rate be set
As that of true and faithful Juliet.

CAPULET
As rich shall Romeo's by his lady's lie;
Poor sacrifices of our enmity!

PRINCE
A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Juliet and her Romeo.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 05:45 PM

Remember, the proposal that the Arab states have endorsed calls for Israel to return to the borders existing BEFORE the 1976 war which, if Bobert's excellent idea of a 3-mile DMZ were adopted, would put Tel-Aviv airport inside Palestine. Very few intelligent Israelis, except for the extremists that think the borders should resemble those of the pre-Roman Judean kingdom, would object at all to guaranteed borders resembling those established after the '67 war, but returning the Golan heights and the area between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be a major security issue.

My own suggestion is that the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza should be given 90-days to pack up and move inside the post-1967 borders. Then the army should do the same. Anybody who doesn't want to leave can be on their own. There should be a massive aid program to establish a viable economy in Palestine that doesn't depend upon bracero jobs within Israel as it does now.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 24 Apr 02 - 08:03 PM

The real sticky problems, as I see them, are the questions of the "right of return" for those Palestinian Arabs who fled in 1948 (most at the urging of their leaders) and who shall control Jerusalem.
I suggest -one more time- that Jerusalem be made an international city with the right of free access guaranteed by the UN which shall move its headquarters there.
There should be a token return. The country of Israel could not absorb the 700,00 who left during 1948 along with their descendents.It would wreck the economy of the country and only prolong the animosity. Those who could not return would be absorbed into the economies ot the countries where they now reside. If Israel was required to pay reparations to those Arabs who lost their property when they fled, then so should the 600,000 Jews who fled the Arab nations in 1948in the face of confiscation and/or death be reimbursed for their losses.
Israels borders would remain at the post 1967 War positions. They won that land in a war that they did not start. Why should they now be forced to give it back? For the rest of Samaria and Judea, give any settlers there 90 days; then they can make their own deals with the government of the new country.
Gaza stays. It's conquered territory.
The Golon is declared a UN Mandate and is administered as such. This will protect the Sea of Galilee which is the primary source of water for the region.
A well marked and militarily defensable DMZ, manned by UN (not US) troops would be essential and ANY incursions over the same would resuin severe sanctions until the perps were turned over to the UN for trial.
Some kind of Marshall plan to rebuild with trainining for modern jobs. This would have to be coordinated so that when the trainees completed their training, there would be jobs available for them.
This is all a pipe dream of course, because nothing of the sort will happen.
I see all-out war within two years.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 12:18 AM

O little town of Bethleham how still we see thee lie

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 12:52 AM

The country of Israel could not absorb the 700,00 who left during 1948 along with their descendents.It would wreck the economy of the country

Just yesterday, I heard Ariel Sharon make an open invitation to Jews all over the world to move to Israel. He said Israel needs them. Doesn't sound like an influx of large numbers of people is of too much concern to him.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 01:10 AM

The majority of these Jews would bring needed skills with them. The Jews, as a people, tend to place a great deal of value on education.
The Palestinian Arabs who have spent the last 50 years sitting in "refugee" camps have few of the skills needed in a modern industrial society.
They would, instead, have to be supported, educated, and trained. All this takes a great deal of time and money, especially when the people you are trying to support, train, and educate have been taught to hate you since birth.
Lets not go into the whys and wherefores of the fleeing of the Palestinian Arabs in the first place. I'm not talking right or wrong here. I'm talking practicalities.
NO country could absorb that many basically untrained people and not feel a great economic impact and Isreal only has about 6,000,000 people in a very small geographic area.
Besides, Sharon didn't need to invite the Jews of the world to come and live in Israel. They already have the right to claim citizenship under Israeli law so his invitation was rhetorical grandstanding.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 01:19 AM

That's a supposition, troll. He didn't specify that the Jews had to be educated. And we know that Jews live in all parts of the world, and come from all economic and educational levels. And there are a lot of Palestinians who have gone to other parts of the world to get their educations, but whose families are still in Palestine. And I think you may not be fully informed about the education system that existed in the Palestinian occupied territories before it was destroyed recently by Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 02:21 AM

Carol, I am speaking in generalities as you are do8ubtless well aware. I am only somewhat familiar with the education system in the territories but, from what I have read it was pretty good on most levels. I also know that many people of Arab descent go abroad for further education. I live in a university town with a fairly large Muslim population.
I never said that Sharon said that any Jewish immigrants had to be educated. I said that "The majority of these Jews would bring needed skills with them. The Jews, as a people, tend to place a great deal of value on education." This has been true of Jewish immigrants in the past and I see no reason why it should not hold true now.
I subscribe to a Muslim-owned magazine and I try to read at least one Islamic news source daily. I don't believe everything they have to say any more than I would believe everything that Matt Drudge or Rush Limbaugh or Dan Rather says.
I don't know how high the education level of the Palestinian Arabs is as a group but, based on what I have seen and read, I'd bet that it is lower than that of the potential Jewish immigrants as a group.
I stand by my earlier post.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Bert
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 03:44 AM

Well I've been reading these posts and I'm delighted that the general trend has been towards peace. I want peace for ME, and I want peace for EVERYONE. It seems that most of us crazy Mudcatters feel the same way.

Let's not let this thread drift towards "taking sides" in this issue 'cos it's "taking sides" that causes dissention.

I was married to a Jewish woman for many years, so I can fully appreciate the Jewish side.
I lived in the Middle East for seven years, a couple of which were spent in an Arab village, so I can also see the Arab side.

What I want is for both sides in this issue to be MY SIDE. People are people the world over, and they all want basically the same thing. They want to be able to live their lives in peace and to be friends with their neighbors and to be able to go out and earn a living and simply survive.

It's time to remove the politicians from the equation and let the people be nice to each other.
So Sharon and Arafat! It's time for you to decide, individually, whether you are a person or a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar (Roger O'K)
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 06:00 AM

Congratulations once again to Bert for starting this thread as a conterweight to the "war crimes" ones.

Apart from the content which it has brought up, I'm particularly pleased to see that by putting the question in different terms it elicits different sides of people's overall views.

Troll's contributions (assuming it's the same Troll) have been a revelation, because I had been having some difficulty identifying with his(?) contributions to the threads on "war crimes" - possibly because I have tended willy-nilly to bracket him with DougR with whom he seems to side there. It's one of the drawbacks of this kind of communication medium that we tend to form an image of individual contributors which colours our perceptions.

Any chance we could get DougR to show us the positive side of his personality by joining up on this thread in the spirit in which it is intended?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 09:01 AM

Peace comes when all peoples involved recognize that they do not have a right to their anger, but rather have a responsibility to respect and forgive.

Subject: RE: From Neta Golan, an Israeli Jew
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 09:41 AM

Sorry bert, but Neta Golan of the Israeli human rights group, Bat Shalom, says our help is needed in order for peace to happen in Israel and Palestine...

Muhammad Daud's Killer

Note: Neta told this story on Flashpoints Radio, Jan 2, 2002 see: http://www.flashpoints.net/index-2002-01-01to03.html#neta for the full text and pictures, there you can click on the "14:30" mark for the audio accompaniment

Dear Bat Shalom Friends and Allies-

We are sending you a report from activist Neta Golan. It is as harsh as only truth can be, and it is revelatory. It is why we do the resistance work that we do, thousands of Israeli women who continue to assert our uncompromising truth - that occupation is wrong, occupation is terror, occupation must end. Terry

I had spent the day with the villagers of Deir Istiya in which we planted trees on land coveted by the settlement of Yakir. I was on my way home. Two soldiers recognized me and asked in Hebrew:" Neta how are you?" To them I was a novelty. "You know who I'm talking to?" One of them told a friend that phoned his cell phone "Neta from Peace Now" ( I am not from Peace Now but thats as far left as they could fathom).

We talked. At one point one of the soldiers told me: "when I see a terrorist laying on the ground in his own blood it gives me an appetite". He hesitated before continuing. He wanted to reveal to me something he was proud of. "There was a time when someone in Hares village picked up a huge bolder to throw at me. Do you know what I did?" He asked.

I knew. "You killed him." "That's right" he smiled, self-satisfied.

I know the two children and the young father who where murdered in Hares in the last fifteen months by Israeli soldiers so I asked him when it happened, On what day? By his answer, I realized the soldier in front of me was the murderer of my friend Muhammad Daud.

- "Let me tell you who you killed" I said. - "I don't care." - "I know you don't but I want you to know who you killed. His name was Muhammad Daud and he was fifteen years old. He was retarded and I loved him very much..."

I told him every thing I could think of about Mohammad and about his family. He didn't want to hear it. "I know where he was standing" I said. "I saw his blood on the ground. There is no way he could have thrown a stone at you from so far away, let alone a boulder."

- "You weren't there." He was screaming now. - "OK. You were there. So you tell me. How far do you think he could have thrown that "boulder"? Three meters? Ten meters? Lets just imagine that it was humanly possible to throw it a hundred meters. You were over three hundred meters away. - " You weren't there. " - "That's right, I wasn't there. You were there. So you tell me, how far away were you when you murdered him?"

He kept trying to stop me, but I wouldn't stop. It was all I could do. And the fact that he didn't want to hear it was the only indication that maybe somewhere deep inside there is a piece of humanity still intact in this boy.

After they walked away I was lucky to have friends with me who held me as I wept. Meeting his killer reopened the wound of losing my friend, a wound that never healed. I realized that if any man was evil, the soldier I just spoke to was, and yet he was a boy, an ignorant and stupid boy who never should have been given any power. Who never should have stepped foot in any village. Who never should have had a gun.

Young Soldiers, many of them like Muhammad's Killer control every Aspect of the lives of millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Ignorant youth like these have the power of life and death over Palestinian elders and children alike.

This cannot continue. To stop this injustice we need help. Help us.

In solidarity, Neta Golan

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 10:09 AM

Yes, and I heard an interview on NPR yesterday with a 15 year old Israeli girl who was injured by one bomber and whose best friend's mother was killed by another. The bombings of children have been happening in Israel for 50 years now. Two wrongs don't make a right, and 2000 wrongs don't make 2000 rights. BOTH sides have to make an effort to stop this.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 10:27 AM

Roger, just because I'm not a leftist doesn't mean that I don't want peace. Very few of us see the world as black or white with no possibility of compromise.
We all want peace and stability, we just disagree on how to achieve those lofty goals.

The one and only

troll (lower-case "t", please)

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 10:35 AM

Muhammad Daud was killed in December 2000. Peace has a better chance when the retelling of old brutalities and crimes doen't impair the look to the future.

As different as Northern Ireland was and is, one thing that strikes me as similar is that the tales by each side are(were) too often an uninterrupted sequence of brutalities committed solely by the other side.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 11:48 AM

The point with that account though was that the person telling it was an Israeli, telling of something that a fellow Israeli had done, rather than someone telling of "brutalities committed solely by the other side".

Maybe the best move towards understanding and reconciliation in any conflict is when, instead of giving witness to the atrocities committed against our own people, we can turn to giving witness about the atrocities committed by own people.

The problem for Israel with the right of return for Palestinians isn't to do with their being unable to be useful members of the community or whatever. It's to do with their ethnicity. They aren't Jewish, and Israel has been set up to be a state which will always have a majority that is in some sense Jewish.

It would be a terrible thing if the world was made up of countries which had that way of defining themselves. But in this case it has its roots in the history of centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust. It's a special case, a consequence of the evil that has been tolerated in Europe for so long.

The tragedy is that the resulting injustice of "ethnic cleansing" was imposed upon the people of the Holy Land. And this then had the further consequence of imposing a similar knock-on injustice on settled Jewish communities elsewhere in the Near and Middle East.

The injustice and the exile cannot be reversed, but it is time that people at least gave up talking about as voluntary. When frightened people flee their homes in a time of war and massacres and rumours of massacres, that is not voluntary even if they are not moving at gunpoint. I seem to remember Milosevic saying this kind of thing of the refugees from Kosovo. It's been said often enough of Jewish refugees.

A recognition by Israel, and by the friends of Israel, that an injustice was done, together with some kind of compensation, is the only way to deal with the continued exclusion from their homeland of Palestinians from what is now Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 12:14 PM

Peace, troll, I'm actually a lot more conservative than you might imagine. Twenty-odd years a member of the Irish equivalent of the National Guard, but I could reconcile that with my pacifist leanings because I knew that, unlike the US forces, we would never be used in any role other than defence of the homeland, and even that was a remote prospect. It was really just a bit of good fun, and a valuable educational experience, while supporting the institutions of the State and providing a safe outlet for young lads with an interest in guns an' stuff at a time when they could have got into much more dangerous pastimes.

The pacifism came from early 1960s exposure to West Germans' reflection on their recent history, combined with a period in a German university in 1969-70 when US students who I used to hang out with were all on Vietnam draft deferments - in fact one (Bill Keele) got his orders to report to the Army school of Oriental languages while we were there. I sometimes wonder if he's still alive.

The lady from Israel is courageous, and I suspect that people in the US are not getting to hear much of her and those like her. At times like this, the asinine (sorry, JC) "those who are not with me are against me" mentality takes over and you're supposed to be loyal to your own side and shut up about the wrongs which they're doing. The great twentieth-century organisation whose motto was "My oath is loyalty" (Wie lautet das eigentlich auf Deutsch, Wolfgang?) was none other than the SS, and Germans are nervous about appeals to loyalty ever since.

A lot of damage is done by the way "history" is taught, not least in my own country. The Council of Europe (in Strasbourg) has done some excellent but little-known work on this -check it out at

http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/History%5FTeaching/

The CoE is unfortunately grossly underfunded, unlike the European Union for which I work and which some of our leaders would like to see becoming "not a super-State, but a super-power". An appalling prospect, I'd sooner see it a law-abiding super-State that just wants to get on with its neighbours than an erratic, two-bit vehicle for would-be statesmen in countries like France and the UK who still haven't learnt much from history.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 04:55 PM

The Israeli government is doing what it's doing, ostensibly in the name of Israeli Jews and Jews all over the world. I say the Israeli government is committing crimes against all Jews. Atrocities like the one described above (and aparently there are a lot of them) are an affront to the memory of every single Jew who died in the holocaust.

The point is not to recount all of the hurts of the past. The point is to put a stop to crimes against humanity that are taking place now. We can help. But we have to stop hiding our heads in the sand about what is happening, and speak up agains these things. If people had been willing to do that sooner during Hitler's reign of terror, maybe a lot of Jewish lives would have been saved.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Deda
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 05:43 PM

Last week I heard a young man speak about Israel for about 1/2 hour or 45 minutes, in very broken English. His name was Meir, and his grandparents were survivors of the Holocaust. When he was a small boy his parents brought him and his 5 siblings from Holland to Israel, to have a homeland where they could be safe. A few months ago, Meir's parents and three of their six kids were killed by a suicide bomber in the Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem. Meir has no intention of ever living anywhere but Israel, in spite of this loss. A Finnish TV program tried to arrange for him to meet the family of the Palestinian suicide bomber. Meir was hesitant but willing. However, the Palestinian family said that their only regret was that their son hadn't killed the whole family and more. So no meeting was possible.

The original idea of this thread was that everyone should post an idea that would forward peace. I made a suggestion that the early education on each side needs to be vetted so that kids aren't indoctrinated into seeing the other side as satanic. The mindset that destroys any possibility of resolution goes like this: "Innumerable / unspeakable things have been DONE TO US" -- and that's as far as the reasoning process goes, after that it's just inarticulate hatred. No admission, no acknowledgement that this is a two-sided thing, that each side has been cruel and violent and inhuman, and that each side has been hurt beyond telling. I don't know how to change that mindset--but that IS what needs to change.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 05:51 PM

The article contained in this link is why what you are suggesting will never work, Deda. And keep in mind, the original article that this one is based on was not written by a Palestinian. It was written by Christopher Hedges and it was published in Harper's Magazine. I would post that article, except that I can't find it. But troll has read it, so we know it exists.

Divide and conquer

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 05:54 PM

And here's another reason why what you're suggesting will never work...

Tad Mitsui and a group of Canadian Christians

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 06:44 PM

And I have read it too, Carol C, and we have already been through that on another thread. The fact that the article you are touting is reprinted in a clearly biased publication takes away (in my mind at least)it's credibility to serve as an unbiased piece.

Roger: you wondered if Doug R migh post in a postitive manner to this thread. The problem, I fear, is that your interpretation of "positive" will be whatever agrees with your point of view! And that's not likely.

But, you want my opinion, here it is. The only way peace will come between Israel and Palestine is for one or the other to fight it out, and the winner will dictate the terms of peace. Anyone who reads into that statement that I am pro one country over the other when I make it, is simply not reading the statement, or does not understand English.

If I had to take sides, as I have stated on another thread, I would side with Israel. But ...I do favor creation of a Palestine state.

Do I want there to be peace? Yes! Absolutely! No doubt about it! Many efforts have been made, including those of President Carter, President Reagan, President Clinton, and now, President Bush to help resolve this conflict at the peace table. That has not worked. I don't think that it will work. Why hasn't it worked? I lay the blame at the feet of one Arafat for reasons stated in other threads. I think had Arafat followed through with what he had agreed to in previous peace talks, many, many lives would have been saved.

I agree with a lot that Bobert posted, except that a two or three mile buffer zone might not be practical. Two or three miles is a lot of territory in that area. Perhaps it could be a mile, but that's nitpicking.

Roger, your earlier statement: "the action on 9/11 wasn't amenable to military action is, in my opinion, pure horse pucky. The U. S. was attacked by a known terrorist group. That group took great pleasure in the death and destruction that the attack caused. The U. S. had every right to retaliate in my opinion. And if you are under the impression that the poor people in Afghanstan were better off before the U. S. interevened, then I simply don't know what to say to you. We are way too far apart in our views.

I realize that my views would win me no popularity contests on the Mudcat. But I love the Mudcat, just as most of you do, and I'm not running for most popular guy anyway.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 07:46 PM

Here is a link to Christopher Hedges' article from Harpers Magazine itself.

The fact that an article gets quoted in a partisan publication in no way discredits the article itself. After all, that same publication could well have decided to reprint the Gettysburg Address or the preamble to the American Constitution, or the Gospel according to St Matthew. As could any other partisan publication, backing either side.

"The only way peace will come between Israel and Palestine is for one or the other to fight it out, and the winner will dictate the terms of peace." That sounds like something which is self evidently correct. In a lot of conflicts it is true, maybe in most wars. But I believe, and I am not alone in believing that, in the type of conflict in the Holy Land, it just doesn't work that way, any more than it ever could in Ireland.

In America it was indeed possible for the newcomers to effectively totally replace the native population, and in the end eliminate any possibility of continuing conflict. But those were very special circumstances which do not apply in the Holy Land.

If peace has to depend on victory, there will be no peace, merely at best temporary cessations of violence. Again the Irish analogy applies. The only way that "victory" can be achieved is if one side is wiped out. The horrible thing is, sooner or later, that could indeed happen.

Peace through a mutual turning away from a search for victory is possible. Everyone knows what the broad outlines of that would involve. It's been outlined repeatedly in this thread. It was within reach only a few months ago.

The responsibility for throwing it away in my view lies every bit as much with Sharon and his friends as it does with Arafat - but what's the point of going off into arguments about that?

There's a technique in negotiating which involves the representative from each side try to state as clearly and strongly and effectively as possible their understanding of the other side's position. The other side cooperates by correcting what is said.

I think that is a technique that could be very useful in this kind of discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 07:53 PM

CarolC, I don't like to use 'never'. It's a very long word, and to me, it seems part of the rhetoric that perpetuates the impasse.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 07:56 PM

Oh come on McGrath! Have we been talking about the Gettisburg Address? The preamble to the American Constitution?

The question is, would you find this article reprinted in a Jewish publication as an argument for siding with Israel? No, I don't think so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 08:17 PM

There are Jewish publications that are extremely critical of the policy of the present Israeli government, and which see opposition to it as a patriotic duty, which might very well quote from that article.

But in any case the fact that a publication chooses to quote something which has been written in another publication has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy or validity of the original article.

I am sure that quotes from George Bush, for example, have appeared in publications on both sides, with approval of the particular passages quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 08:23 PM

Has anybody actually read what is in those links? Even if you don't want to read or give any credence to the first one I posted, have you read what's in the other one I posted and the one posted by McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 08:24 PM

Because to me, compared to what's in those links, arguments about the use of the word "never" and whether or not we can trust what was written in only one of those links seems incredibly trivial.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 08:47 PM

I had already read the first article; I will try to read the second one later. I think there can be no peace unless Israel understands that unconditional support from America (however defined) does not exist. It never existed, but it was so entertwined with political lobbies and campaign contributions that it appeared to exist. I offer conditional support and that is all. Conditions are warfare as conducted by civilized nations, which at least means no torture and no looting and no raping, no vandalism, no disruption of electricity and water, no settlements, no provocation, international military observers, access by relief organizations. There have to be some nukes with our name on them, is all I can figure out, or some state secrets that they have obtained, or they would not act with such impunity. I repeat, I am an inactive Army officer, and this is not a rag-tag military that we are dealing with. The apparent lack of discipline, and the horrid human rights abuses apparently done by the military, and not just in the heat of battle, can not be explained, except by the fact that someone wants them to happen. mg

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 11:34 PM

mg, the nukes are there all right but they aren't aimed at us.
They are aimed at Amman and Cairo, and Damascus and Baghdad and Meccah and Medina and the Arabs know it. That's why they are staying outof the fight physically. Israel has a superbe army, but how long do you think it would last if the Arab world moved against it as one. The Israelis have lived under the gun for over 50 years and they remember the Holocaust. If they go down, they will go down fighting and the last act will be to fire the missiles.
The infrastructure of the Arab States is centered around a few cities -usually the capitol. Destroy that and you destroy the government.
That was the mistake bin Laden made. He thought that by destroying the WTC -home of some of our major financial institutions- he would totally disrupt our economy and so bring down the US. After all, thats what would happen in Saudi Arabia or Iran.
As for the atrocities, we shall see what we shall see when the UN Team finishes investigating. Obviously, there have been abuses and they should be addressed but addressed on BOTH sides.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 11:42 PM

I want to know something else...we keep hearing about the women in the military there...why is all we hear about is men at these checkpoints? And having women stripped naked to check for explosives etc. Why aren't women at the checkpoints to check women, and I do agree that it is necessary....mg

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 02 - 11:51 PM

Troll, the Palestinian side is the only side in this situation that has been punished for its actions. More than three Palestinians have been killed for every Israeli killed. The entire infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, including roads, hospitals, and the education system has been destroyed. Whole towns, orchards and other aspects of civilization have been bulldozed over the years.

But the Israeli government has not had any of the abuses it has committed over many years addressed in any way. It has been conducting these abuses with complete impunity. I'd say if things are ever going to be balanced out in any kind of just way, the Israeli government has a lot of catching up to do in the "being held accountable" department.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 12:33 AM

You'd think the Palesyinian Arabs would have learned by now, wouldn't you.
And I guess that living with the knowledge -every single day of your life- that there are people out there in the street who hate you enough to kill you at the expense of their own lives; that every time your kid goes to school, he or she may not come home because the buss was blown up; that at any time the SCUDS may land in your neighborhood or the artillery shells may hit your house, well, those things are simply the dispossesed Arabs venting their just displeasure at having lost every war of aggression they have launched and trying to let you know that they want their lost territory back.
It's really nothing to become upset about. Surely it's no reason to restrict the Arabs movements and build secure roads in the conquered territory and set up checkpoints so that you can control who goes in and out of the areas you control. I mean, those things are humiliating.
I could go on but why bother. ALL governments have much to answer for in regards to the pursuit of security for their people. The losers get called to account; the winners skate
That's the brutal reality of the world. You don't have to like it. And you can try to change it.
But you'd better understand that it has been that way since forever and will probably continue to be so.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 12:36 AM

You really didn't read those links McGrath and I posted, did you troll?

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 12:40 AM

And you didn't read my second to last post very carefully, either. I didn't say that the Israeli people haven't suffered. I said the Israeli government has not been held in any way accountable for its abuses. There's a big difference.