BS: PEACE in The Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Apr 02 - 03:46 PM

Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 02 - 09:06 AM

Here's another link about people trying to light candles instead if just cursing the darkness.Friendship Viillage

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Apr 02 - 03:19 AM

Thanks for clarifying that troll. I stand corrected.

I tried to show that the Palestinians are just as guilty as you say the Israelis are. No one is blameless in thai conflict.

I've been doing the same thing. My criticisms of Israel have been in response to things several people have posted about Palestinians. If you see me pointing out something that has been done by the Israel side of the equation, you can be sure it is in response to something someone has posted about the Palestinians, to show that Israel (government, military, and some citizens) is as guilty as the Palestinians. I have not posted anything about Israel gratuitously.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 28 Apr 02 - 03:02 AM

"DougR, what I said was in response to troll's indictment of Palestinians for the way they handled people they suspected of being collaborators.

I find that when someone attempts to give us a reason to hate Palestinians, such as that attempt by troll, and then I try to show that the Palestinians aren't any more guilty of whatever is being accused than the Israelis, people only notice my defence of the Palestinians. Nobody seems to notice all of the things people are giving here in this forum to show why we should hate Palestinians."
Carol, I'm sorry you feel that my post was an attempt to get people to "hate Palestinians". I merely wanted to show that things are not sweetness and light on either side.
Contrary to your POV, I tried to show that the Palestinians are just as guilty as you say the Israelis are. No one is blameless in thai conflict.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 28 Apr 02 - 01:55 AM

McGrath, I carefully emphasised "members" in my post. I dont' regard unidentified guest postings as relevant and don't read them generally.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 09:32 PM

DougR, I put my answer to your question on the "War crimes" thread.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 09:05 PM

I can't recall that closely. Every now and again really nasty GUEST posts have come up spouting hate, and I skim right past them, and I don't know whether they've just been anti Jewish or if there've been ones which are spouting the same kind of hate against Arabs. Honest.

But I agree that a PM about any such would be better than a link or a quote, for anyone who think it's significant. People who talk and think in those kind of terms are damaging to whichever side they ostensibly support. (And in some cases that's the idea, and you can't necessarily take them at face value. Planting posts that are intended to discredit the other side are a common enough technique in online controversies.)

But I think there's more value in looking for places wheresome efforts have been made at bridging the differences which have been generated between Jews and Arabs, especially Muslem Arabs, as a consequence of persecutioin and intolerance in Europe against Jews, by the very same kind of people who now in many places express hate against Arabs. And here is another example of bridge building.The Compassionate Listening Project

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 08:32 PM

I'm sure you have followed this thread as much as I have McGrath, and if you were aware of posts promoting hate from the mudcat membership toward either Israel or the Palestinians, I think you would have recalled it. It would not be necessary to reprint the messages, it could be handled with a PM if you feel it would be unseemly to reprint it. I just don't think there have been any such postings.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 06:13 PM

I think that in addition to international peacekeepers and an occupying force (a disciplined, respectful international military force) for Palestine, there needs to be a further international presence, for people to make sure everything is on the up and up, to bring eurodollars into the area, and to bring hope and social and medical services. I think this is especially true for services and education for the Palestinian children, who wlll have to be deprogrammed essentially. Their curriculum and books and everything will have to be looked at closely...and I think all sides have to look at what they are teaching children. I don;'t know what anyone else is teaching and it might be all love and peace, but I don't know. If you read the writings of Palestinian children, one major theme is that they really want playgrounds. How hard can that be, especially now that some ground has been "cleared" for them...Ben and Jerry's has a program for playgrounds, and it is international. Check it out and write to them. mg

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 06:04 PM

If there haven't been posts on the Mudcat that encouraged hatred and contempt of Palestinians that's a good thing. If there have been I don't think it's such a good idea to revive them.

There definitely has been a lot in various publications - and not just fringe ones - which have done that sort of thing both directly and even more frequently by treating suffering by Palestinians as far less worthy of note than suffering by Israelis.

And an aspect of this lopsidedness is the way in which there is a constant tendency always to describe violence from the Palestinian side as provocation, and violence from the Israeli side as responding to provocation, and never the other way round.

But the other way round is just as accurate. And just as inaccurate. The truth is, in a cycle of violence like trhis every violent act is a provocation, and it is also a response to provocation.

That's the kind of thing I meant when I talked about the need to be able to stand in the other sides shoes.

And here is a link to a piece about people trying to do that., the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 05:38 PM

Carol: support of one side over another does not automatically assure that a person hates the side he/she does not favor. I don't hate the Jews, and I don't hate the Palestinians. I think Israel should be allowed to exist in peace, and I think the Palestinians should have their own country, and they too, should live in peace. I don't see it happening, though, because they each hate the other too much.

As I pointed out in another thread, I don't recall (other than a few Guest posts) anyone indicating that they hated one side or the other. I will retract my statement if you can point out a member post where that has been the case.

DougR

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Apr 02 - 02:53 AM

Here's a bit of documentation to support what I said about terrorism from Palestinians being absent during the period when the they thought they were going to finally get relief under the Oslo agreement.

In an article dated October 5, 1995 - David Twersky, MWJN Editor-in-Chief (I have no idea what MWJN is) includes the following quote from Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin

"In the last two years, not one Israeli has been killed by PLO terrorism," Rabin said.

The article can be found here...

Yitzhak Rabin

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 06:45 PM

If you aren't able to imagine yourself into the other persons shoes you're no use as a negotiator. If you can't do that you've no way of anticipating how they are going to respond to anything you say or do. It's as essential a skill as a sense of balance to a tight rope walker.

The people who met up and came up with the peace process had that skill. The people who demolished it did not. The important thing is to put the driving reins back in the hands of people who are capable of thinking in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 06:17 PM

DougR, what I said was in response to troll's indictment of Palestinians for the way they handled people they suspected of being collaborators.

I find that when someone attempts to give us a reason to hate Palestinians, such as that attempt by troll, and then I try to show that the Palestinians aren't any more guilty of whatever is being accused than the Israelis, people only notice my defence of the Palestinians. Nobody seems to notice all of the things people are giving here in this forum to show why we should hate Palestinians.

Every single thing I have posted about what the Israelis have done in this thread and elsewhere has been to show that the Palestinians are no more worthy of our hate than the Israelis. They really are human beings just like the Israelis and just like the rest of us. They're not more evil, they're not more prone to doing evil things. They're human beings, just like us.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 03:11 PM

DEBKA is a good source but on ocassion they publish before they check the story out. A good example of this came during the war in Afghanistan. DEBKA reported that there were 10,000(?) Chinese Muslims massed on the China-Afghan border, ready to support the Taliban. It never happened.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Deda
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 02:39 PM

I try to imagine Arafat and Sharon facing off to explain one another's grievances, without bursting into defiant tirades each about how wrong the other is. It would be a great exercize if it were possible, but given the parties involved, I can't see it. It is easier to picture the three stooges dancing swan lake, speaking fluent french and having tea with Queen Victoria.

Here is a web-site rich with intelligence about this fight, but with a strongly right-wing Israeli bias (i.e., they think that Sharon is too limp in his responses). If the blue clicky fails, the address is http://www.debka.com/

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: DougR
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 02:14 PM

Carol: this is a fairly long thread, with a lot of print, and I have read all of it. I do not recall ANYONE stating that they doubted that some torture on either side was used. The blue clickies you and Wolfgang provided certainly would seem to validate that both Israel, and the Palestinians used torture at some time to extract information from prisoners.

I, for one, was not surprised to hear this.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 09:06 AM

One point that occurred to me from a previous Troll made -"If they go down, they will go down fighting and the last act will be to fire the missiles."

That could be true. It's the same way of thinking as that of a suicide bomber, but on a larger scale. As with most conflicts, the people on both sides share more in common than they may realise.

Maybe to hope that negotiators in the Middle East will use that negotiating method I mentioned is too much at this point - but maybe some of us might try it. "In your shoes" instead of "in your face".

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 08:31 AM

"Well, troll, I would pose the question a little differently. What do you think the Israeli government does with people who are actively collaborating with terrorists, or with any entity it considers itself at war with. I would suggest to you that it probably tortures them before it either imprisons them or executes them."
I don't know that they do, I don't know that they don't, so I will not accuse them of it until I'm am given proof.
I KNOW that the Palestinian Arabs do execute collaborators in the streets and then -in defiance of the Koran- allow the bodies to be defiled and mutilated. I don't know what the extent of that collaboration was; whether they gave away military secrets or protected a Jew from a mob. No one has said. Probably no one knows or will ever know. At least no one who will talk.
The well-meaning people who give my wife tracts are stunned too. They just can't conceive that anyone could not believe as they do. Especially when they have shown them proof.
My wife is not wicked because she doesn't believe as they do and you are not foolish because you don't agree with me. There are several sides to almost every question and one mans Mesiah may be another mans Prophet.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 08:24 AM

That may be the case Wolfgang, but I should probably point out that the only reason I included that letter from Neta Golan was because here in the US, most people aren't familiar with that story, and we really don't have any real idea of what's been going on over there. And for that reason, and some others, people seem to be unwilling to believe that these things could have taken place, and especially not if the story is told by a Palestinian. I wanted people here in the US to see that even some Israelis are reporting these kinds of things, and that they have really been happening. People here just don't believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 08:02 AM

I think it is a really good idea to keep the discussion here focused on what Bert had in mind when he started the thread and not use this thread as if it was just a continuation of the 'war crimes' thread.

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. (McGrath)

That's a very good technique and it works fine if both sides can agree to it. It can be extended (and I'm rather sure Kevin had that in mind as weel) to grievances and hurts as well but you must be able to accept that the other side has at least a little reason to complain too.

As long as each side instead of listening really to what someone else has to say only answers with a description of an atrocity they (or their kin) have suffered peace is still far away.

The reactions of the Palestinian family and of the Israeli soldier (though I must admit something in the way Neta Golan writes makes me think that her mind was on confrontation and nothing else) in Deda's and Carol's posts show that frame of mind of too many on both sides is not ready yet for that approach. Both reactions say loudly 'I don't even want to start to think about the feelings of loss and grieve my (our son's) action has brought upon others.'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 07:46 AM

Ok. Point taken. I'm going to try to get my head out of the profoundly funky place it got into after all of the research I've been doing on this subject lately and clean up my act and give a positive approach.

And I'm going to break one of my general rules. I'm going to state it as fact rather than as opinion.

Terrorism in the middle east will not stop permanently until the Palestinians are able to live with the same human rights and dignities that the Israelis enjoy. And it won't stop permanently until the Palestinians have the right of self-determination for their own land, and their lives.

Therefore, to bring peace to the middle east, Israelis will need to recognize their shared humanity with the Palestinians. And they are going to have to vote the Likud party out of office and elect leaders who will be able to negotiate peace, and keep their agreements.

Terrorism was almost completely absent in Israel during the period of time when the Palestinians were living with the belief that the Oslo accord was going to be implemented, and up until the time when Yitzak Rabin was assasinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist (I mention that only so that no one who is not familiar with that event will assume that it was a Palestinian who did it.)

After Rabin was killed, and the new, more right wing government took office, the Israeli government backed out of the accord. During this time, it was also expanding the settlments with no sign that they were going to stop. That's when the Palestinians lost hope entirely, and terrorism became a problem in the area again.

And the idea that Arafat was offered the most generous deal he could possibly get at Camp David and walked away from it is entirely incorrect. I have been reading a lot of what the Palestinians have to say about that. They say that with the offer they were given, the system of aparthied that has been one of the biggest objections for them about their situation, would still have been in place. As would the settlements. And the soldiers. And the checkpoints. This was not a generous offer. It was just more of the same, although the shape of the boundaries would be somewhat different. But not nearly as much land as people make it sound.

Just as the apharthied system in South Africa had to be eliminated before South Africa could have peace, the apharthied system in Israel/Palestine will have to go before there will be peace there. When the Palestinians enjoy the same human rights and dignities that the Israelis enjoy, and after the infrastructure of civilization in the Palestinian territories that was recently destroyed is rebuilt and restored, then there will be peace in Israel and Palestine. And not until then.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 06:50 AM

This thread started out trying to approach this issue in a positive way, trying to imagine things that might help. I think it'd be a good idea of we tried to keep it that way.

There are some deep disagreements about this, but there are also a lot of shared values. We're all against injustice and murder and lies. The disagreements are mostly based on a different understandings of the actual facts. Important disagreements about who has done what to who, and how it came about - but beneath them there is common ground.

It's possible to explain how we see the facts, and point out additional facts that seem to be overlooked by the people with whom we are at odds, and to do that without getting into a confrontational stance. So why don't we?

And once thing that never helps in these kind of discussions is sarcasm. It just gets in the way of anything useful. If I've ever slipped into it, I apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 01:52 AM

And I stand corrected about my assertion that you probably hadn't read the links. I guess I just find it quite stunning that you could have read them carefully, and still hold the views that you do. My mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 01:43 AM

Well, troll, I would pose the question a little differently. What do you think the Israeli government does with people who are actively collaborating with terrorists, or with any entity it considers itself at war with. I would suggest to you that it probably tortures them before it either imprisons them or executes them.

I don't think demonstrators would fit into the same category.

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 01:31 AM

troll - the really funny part is...Jesus WASN'T a Christian! He was a Jew. He never specified that people had to belong to any particular religion in order to achieve salvation. These facts seem to be lost on many of his "followers", who are not following him at all, IMO, but following rigid social and religious conventions they are familiar with, that's all.

Every holy man I've ever heard of in the Vedic traditions (from India) recognizes Jesus as a God-man, a fully realized being. Muslims recognize him as a genuine prophet of God, although they place more emphasis on Mohammed, who came later, and to their people. Yet Christians generally deny Muslim and Indian holy figures without even bothering to investigate what they had to say about anything.

Gotta wonder, eh?

I personally feel that spiritual advancement and dedication is something that completely transcends all conventional religions and yet includes them as far as they go, so I have no trouble accepting Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, Baha'Ullah, etc...as all being manifestations or messengers of God.

I'm still trying to make my mind up about William Shatner, though...as to just where exactly he fits in. Hmmmm... :-)

A lot of good suggestions for peace on this thread, I must say. I'd add to it, but I am burnt out. Good night.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 01:20 AM

BTW carol, I noticed in the post on the Canadian group that they spoke of Israeli peace activists demonstrating in front of settlements ,sometimes with Palestinian friends. I was wondering, are those peace activists still alive or have they been killed by the IDF.
I ask this because Palestinian Arabs who are suspected of complicity with Israelis have been killed and their battered bodies put on public display in the past.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: PEACE in The Middle East.
From: Troll
Date: 26 Apr 02 - 01:02 AM

I read the links. Your post reminds me of something that happens to my wife on ocassion. She is Jewish (NOT ZIONIST) and is one of three Jewish teachers in the county where she teaches. She is forever being given tracts and phamplets; "If you would just read this, I know that you would come to believe in Jesus".
Just because those stories shaped your thinking in a certain way, it doesn't mean that I will have the same reaction.
The Government represents the people and they seem to approve of the course their Government is taking. Yes,there are disidents, but the majority would sem to be supproting Sharon at this time. That could change at any time.
All in all, it is the job of the Government to protect the citizens it represents and the Sharon Government seems to feel that rooting out the terrorists root and branch is the way to go about it. This way it relieves the suffering of its people.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)