| Author | Message | ||
     Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 2916 Registered: 9-2001  |
I heard Shakaki, the Palestinian pollster, interviewed the other day about a poll that finds support for Hamas is for its anti-corruption message and not its anti-Israel message. The leader of Hamas recently said he might agree to accept the status quo as a de facto issue, but not de jure--a huge move on his part. It is only one poll, but could presage the ginning of the Palestinians looking more to a home of their own and less to the destruction of Israel--including Hamas. Lots of pitfalls ahead, so much political uncertainty in both nations, but perhaps, just perhaps, a start. The US should do everything in its power to encourage this. Here is an article from Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, an American Jewish group that supports a two-state solution. Are New Winds Blowing? By Marcia Freedman, President With its usual fluidity and volatility, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be entering into an entirely new phase, one that is potentially more hopeful than what preceded. As Ariel Sharon lies in a coma from which he is unlikely to emerge whole, if at all, Ehud Olmert begins to step out from the shadow of his mentor's policies in two very bold ways. First, he has taken a very tough stance toward the "hilltop youth" especially, and the settlers in general. He has ordered the army to evacuate illegal settlers in Hebron's casbah, met with strong resistance and given the IDF free reign to do what needs to be done. The IDF has declared it "a closed military area," just as it did with the Gaza Strip prior to and during the evacuation in August 2005. Nevertheless, on the West Bank this is the first time that such a declaration hasn't preceded an action against Palestinian militants. In going after the most lawless of the settlers, Olmert has also sent a strong message to the political leadership of the West Bank settlers, a point underscored by his cancellation of a weekly meeting with Yesha, the settlers political arm. Olmert seems to have found a willing partner in the IDF high command. There have already been several instances of soldiers lightly wounded by settlers in recent weeks. Both the political and military echelons understand the threat posed by the hilltop youth and those who might follow them. While Israel expresses its concern that civil unrest may break out among the Palestinians, it has already acknowledged by its actions that potentially violent dissent is threatening to break out in Israel as well. Second, the new Prime Minister has declared that following the Palestinian and Israeli elections, he is ready to negotiate a final status accord. Just this week, Olmert went a step further by announcing that his first political appointment would be that of Tzipi Livni to be foreign minister. Livni has consistently recognized that the only option for Israel is a two-state solution negotiated with the elected Palestinian leadership, and for several years, she has held constructive meetings with prominent Palestinians. In the current climate, Israel's demand that negotiations cannot begin prior to Hamas' disarmament is not as intractable as it was a year ago. In allowing the elections to take place in East Jerusalem, the Olmert government tacitly accepted the legitimacy of Hamas' participation in the electoral process. Should Hamas' showing in the elections be strong enough to give them a substantial minority in the new Palestinian Authority, it will have to disarm in order to gain international recognition as a legitimate party. The only question now is how long this will take to happen, and will the international community and Israel have the patience to wait while still moving toward greater rapprochement -- continuance of the ceasefire and easing of restrictions on daily life in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Interestingly, the real push for the moderation and ultimately for the disarmament of Hamas will likely come from the Palestinian voters, to whom Hamas will become accountable upon assuming seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. A study published Thursday by Palestinian pollster Khalil Shakaki for the US Institute for Peace indicates that there is now an increased support among Palestinians for a two-state solution by which "Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Perhaps most importantly, 60% of Palestinians now oppose the use of violence, up from similar studies in 2000 and 2004 in which the majority supported terror attacks against Israel. The poll also examines long-term trends, finding that the more severe the impact of the occupation, the less likely Palestinians are to support compromise. These results indicate that popular support for Hamas is largely a response to corruption within the current Palestinian leadership and to severe hardships caused by the occupation, not a negation of the right of Israel to exist. Hamas may already have begun the transition from a military to a political emphasis. There are some encouraging indications that this may be true. The ceasefire declared in January 2005 still holds. Of the 6 suicide bombings perpetrated against Israeli citizens by Palestinian terrorists since the ceasefire, responsibility for 5 has been claimed by Islamic Jihad--not Hamas--while responsibility for the sixth is still disputed. By entering the electoral process for governance of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas has tacitly accepted Israel's right to exist, and they carefully avoided the issue in their campaign platform. A senior Hamas official indicated that it is not unthinkable that Hamas might amend its charter. Another declared that Hamas will negotiate with Israel. It is possible that rather than talking about "disarming Hamas," we need to start talking about Hamas voluntarily disarming. It is not out of the question that once Hamas' political wing has real governing power, it will gain increased control over its military wing. If the ceasefire continues to hold and the newly constituted Palestinian Authority begins disarmament of the smaller militias and terrorists groups/cells operating, Israel may be under pressure to begin negotiations prior to Hamas' full disarmament. The two men who are expected to be the heads of state of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have both declared their intention to negotiate final status issues. The Palestinian ceasefire declared in February 2005 still holds. Israel has begun to take action against its own extremists. There are Israeli and Palestinian Authority elections, and polls in the region are often poor predictors. New winds may or may not yet be blowing, but at the very least there are breezes that in the dry heat of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feel refreshing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace 11 E. Adams Street, Suite 707 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 341-1205 Fax: (312) 341-1206 info@btvshalom.org | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 422 Registered: 10-2005 |
yep, holding my breath on this one.... | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 489 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark's points are valid, and even more relevant, in light of the Hamas victory, which in my view, would not have happened if the Sharon Government had treated President Abbas as a partner instead of as a leper, and cooperated with him in the Gaza withdrawal to enable Gaza to trade with the outside world. Additionally, the Sharon Government's construction of the security wall inside Palestinian territory instead of on the Israeli border was a big factor in undermining the credibility of Abbas and his program of nonviolence. Additional factors are mentioned below. Here are statements on the Hamas victory by Americans for Peace Now and The American Task Force on Palestine, whose executive director, Rafi Dajani, and founder, Mark Rosenblum, spoke at South Mountain Peace Action's forum in November (www.BeAboutPeace.com)
| ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 245 Registered: 10-2005 |
So let me get this straight....You are honestly willing to believe that Hamas (a group whose STATED goal is the destruction of the state of Israel) gaining its new power is really just for Altruistic reasons? http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm I dare say you would afford the same open-mindedness here at home. If the "Pro-Life Action League" gained a majority in Congress, do you honestly think it would be because they really wanted better Health Care? There is no way to view this positively because a lot of people are going to be killed as this has escalated the face-off significantly; alhough I'm sure it makes a lot of people feel good to think there's a silver lining. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 491 Registered: 2-2003 |
Smarty, I don't view the situation as positive, I regard it as a tragedy. The point that is being made by ATFP and APN is that Hamas must give up violence and recognize Israel's right to exist, or there will be no real progress for the Palestinian people. Hamas is an extremist Islamic organization which has embraced terrorism and which seeks the destruction of Israel. The Palestinian people are mostly secular, do not support terrorism and favor a two-state solution -- Palestine and the Jewish state of Israel. However, a large number of Palestinians who disagree with Hamas's program voted for Hamas out of anger toward the continuing seizure of Palestinian lands by Israelis, especially by the construction of the security wall which also threatens a cutoff of East Jerusalem from the West Bank. Although Israel withdrew from Gaza, it did so in a manner that humiliated Abbas and the Palestinian Authority and allowed Hamas to take credit for it, while leaving Gaza and its people cut off from the world. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority repeatedly appealed to the Israeli and US governments for help in establishing security, for economic assistance, and for progress on the peace process. They warned that unless the Palestinian people had hope for the future they would turn to the extremists. Except for a brief moment when Condoleeza Rice persuaded the Israeli Government to partially open the borders of Gaza, the US and Israeli Governments ignored these pleas. American Task Force on Palestine executive director Rafi Dajani wrote in September:
http://www.beaboutpeace.com/archives/2005/10/rafi_dajani_how.html The US and Israeli Governments did virtually nothing to present the Palestinian people with a credible horizon, and the predicted result occurred this week. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 257 Registered: 10-2005 |
Are right-to-lifer's going to give up Anti-abortion stances? Will Christians give up on Jesus? Vegatarians start eating meat? Being Hamas, by definition, is commitment to destruction of the state of Israel....anything else, would be, well just be being a Palestinian. They won on a Hamas platform. Thinking anything else is simply denying the facts. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 492 Registered: 2-2003 |
Smarty, Yes, but if life deteriorates under a Hamas regime, the Palestinian people -- who don't support the Hamas platform -- will throw them out. If Hamas wants to survive politically, it will have to change. Unlike the Iranians, they are economically dependent on outside support. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 259 Registered: 10-2005 |
So the Palestinian people are going to throw out the Heavily Armed, Syrian&Iranian Supported, flush with $$ Hamas? How do you propose they pull that off? Aligning with Israel? Were the Afghani people able to throw out the Taliban, inspite of the most repressive policies seen in 50 years, and devastating famine, disease, poverty? Why do you think Iranians are economically dependant on outside support? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 493 Registered: 2-2003 |
Smarty, Sure, it's possible Hamas could try to block future elections, but there would be international pressure to overcome, as well as the will of the Palestinian people. My comparison to Iran intended to show that the Palestinians are dependent on outside economic support unlike the Iranians who are not dependent on outside support. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 261 Registered: 10-2005 |
ahhhhhhhhh....the old "Will of the People" argument.....I think this weeks election clearly defined what the "Will of the Palestinian People" lies. Thanks for clarifying the Iran comparrison. I misunderstood. In my opinion, this situation took a 30 year step back, and has taken a GIANT step toward a decent sized, state-sponsored, war. Iran and Syria support this direction, and are the direct supporters of Hamas (meaning they can be armed far more easier than they currently are). | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10431 Registered: 5-2001 |
Paul, do you really think that Hamas gives a darn about world opinion? Didn't think so.  | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2334 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Mark's points are valid, and even more relevant, in light of the Hamas victory, which in my view, would not have happened if the Sharon Government had treated President Abbas as a partner instead of as a leper..." Oh, please. Abbas was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Had Israel treated him as a "partner," Hamas would have painted him as an Israeli stooge. As it is, the withdrawal from Gaza (which I supported, just as I support additional strategic withdrawals from the WB) empowered Hamas, which sold it as a capitulation to their own militancy. "...and cooperated with him in the Gaza withdrawal to enable Gaza to trade with the outside world." Gaza has been a Hamas stronghold for years. No Israeli "cooperation" with Abbas (and what are you talking about, anyway? Israel had worked out a Gaza border patrol arrangement with Egypt long before the Pal elections) would have made the slightest difference there, and people in the WB were hardly voting on whether Abbas got Gaza opened up. This is just formulaic nonsense. There's no doubt that Palestinians elected Hamas because Fatah is corrupt and always has been. But it really does remain to be seen whether a majority of Pals does not agree with Hamas' rejection of Israel's right to exist. I think it's quite likely that far too many do, and that a gullible western press only wishes it were otherwise. In any case, the fault for Palestinian intransigence MUST be laid at Israel's feet in all cases; it's a leftist article of faith. I am not persuaded this election is necessarily the worst possible news, BTW. One has to ask, compared to what? A never ending fiction of imminent peace? It wasn't going to happen, people. Now at least the veils of pretense are being lifted. If only well-meaning folks like Paul Surovell can be persuaded that not every salutary development is Israel's responsibilty to bring about, well, maybe there will yet be some hope for Palestinian self-rule and an Israel at peace with her neighbors. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2335 Registered: 3-2003 |
And another thing: I'm really sort of amazed that nobody, anywhere, seems to have seen this coming. For some reason, I was inclined to believe Hamas would win, and kept screaming obscenities at the television whenever some BBC analyst announced that Hamas was only polling at 30% or whatver. But I think I was simply extending poll data from Gaza to the WB as a whole, and since no one but doomsayers agreed with me, I thought I must be completely nuts. Just goes to show how much credence can be given to popular assessments of Palestinian sentiment in general. | ||
| Eats Shoots & Leaves Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 2944 Registered: 9-2001 |
Like everything else, it almost always comes down to leadership and what they perceive as their best interest for maintaining power and access to resources. Hamas will do what it feels is best to attract resources and retain power. You can bet your bippy that Syria and Iran are going to pour resources into Hamas to try to keep Palestine in their orbit. At the same time, Israel and the US will open very quiet backchannels to Hamas offering resources or concessions or assistance in an effort to open channels of influence--this will likely be through Europe because Hamas cannot afford to let even a whiff of this out regarding US or Israel. My guess is Hamas will come out closer to Syria and Iran BUT ALSO a lot less radical than in the past. They will get rid of militias in favor of a state-controlled army, and will say that while the greater goal is to eventually destroy Israel the immediate focus will be on social reforms within Palestine. Sewers and police and jobs will keep Hamas in power, and they will keep an eventual war with Israel on the backburner in case they need to distract their populace. There will be some unofficial dialogue with Israel along the lines of prisoner releases and economic cooperation (water projects, factories). Israel will pull back unilaterally from some of the West Bank and approximate the 1967 borders more or less, and Hamas will eventually recognize Israel de facto, but not de jure. This may take a generation or two to achieve. They could go nuts and launch an all-out war with Israel, dragging in Syria, Iran, and the US and even Egypt (on which side, I do not know)--but I just don't see this as being as likely as a cold war scenario and focus on domestic issues for now. Hamas gains more money and power by stabilizing the status quo than upsetting the whole applecart. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 496 Registered: 2-2003 |
J. Crohn, Regarding whether anyone saw this coming, please re-read the quote in my 10:05 post. As far as whether my remarks place all blame at "Israel's feet" -- I should remind you that I'm advocating the position of the Israeli peace movement, so it is illogical to suggest that I'm blaming "Israel." I'm directing my criticism at the Sharon administration, which represents only part of Israel, and which in fact is now regarded as "anti-Israel" by significant parts of the Israeli public. Bob K, No, I don't think Hamas cares about world opinion. But I think they will care very much about whether they can get economic support from outside Gaza and the West Bank. | ||
| dougw Citizen Username: Dougw Post Number: 696 Registered: 3-2005 |
Here are a few members of Hamas. What is strapped to their chests? Are they anti-corruption belts or anti-Israeli belts?  | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 498 Registered: 2-2003 |
dougw, Let's hope that the belts were ignited as the camera shutter clicked. But showing this picture doesn't explain why the leaders of these monsters are now in power and why the Palestinian moderates have been discredited in the eyes of the Palestinian population. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10434 Registered: 5-2001 |
Paul, I doubt that France and Germany, not to mention Syria and Iran, will be put off by a Hamas controlled government if there is money to be made. Actually, hasn't Hamas held to a year long cease fire on suicide bombings? I believe those from last year were Islamic Jihad. I hope, but I am not sure I believe, that the Hamas victory is more about an ineffective prior government than their tactics. Whatever you may think of Hamas they are smart and ruthless and also spend a lot of money on medical and social care in an area of the world where that is rare. This can buy you a fair amount of support. Again, I go back to the IRA/Sein Finn model. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 2422 Registered: 5-2001 |
Isn't Hamas, in addition to being all of the terrible things cited above, the group that organized community healthcare and schools and other basic services in the vacuum known as Palestinian leadership over the past several decades? If so, this would account for much of the political capital they enjoy. Anyone who addresses basic needs in a positive way will garner much goodwill, especially in the face of an obviously corrupt government, and despite their actions elsewhere. If my family is starving and you feed my child, I will be forever indebted to you. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2336 Registered: 3-2003 |
"As far as whether my remarks place all blame at "Israel's feet" -- I should remind you that I'm advocating the position of the Israeli peace movement, so it is illogical to suggest that I'm blaming "Israel." " It's not remotely illogical, as the Israeli peace movement--or what's left of its various parts in the wake of the intifada--places all blame at the feet of Israel as a matter of course! That is because pacifist movements are immune to arguments not premised on the conceit that pacifism is an effective tool of the strong. But I have seen little evidence that it is. Pacifism can be, on the other hand, an effective tool in the hands of the weak, at least when faced with an enemy that regards itself as a moral actor. (That description would fit Israel, which has always had a far larger peace movement than the Palestinians themselves have.) Perhaps when pacifists take to lecturing the Palestinians on how to shame Israel into ending their occupation, and Pal Islamists then renounce their plans to eradicate Israel, cease incitement to violence among their children, and stage sit-ins and hunger strikes etc., then Israel will no longer have an excuse for building settlements. Until then, I wouldn't bank on the Jewish state responding to Arab revanchism by saying, "Gee, now that you've blown up my grandmother who survived Auschwitz, and mutilated my five year old daughter for good measure, I see I was wrong to oppress you. I have the power to blow you all to smithereens, but instead of continuing to build settlements, restricting your movements, and assassinating your terror plotters, I'll just evacuate these cities I've established during the last 50 years or so when you were either advertising your desire to drive me into the sea or pretending to recognize my right to exist while teaching your children that Jews poison your wells and there is no nation called Israel." It doesn't work that way, Paul, because power cannot afford to show weakness unless its enemy either cannot or manifestly will not use concessions as a platform from which to launch future violence. The Pals have never been able to speak with one voice on that point. "Regarding whether anyone saw this coming, please re-read the quote in my 10:05 post." You're quite right. Funny how the western press doesn't listen to Israeli security officials. I could swear, though, that Yossi Klein Halevi saw it coming, in a New Republic article several months ago. But again, I think he was talking about a Hamas victory in Gaza. I started a search for it just now, and came across this from today: A two-fold spin has already begun. The first spin concerns Hamas. The same commentators who once assured us that power and responsibility would transform Yasir Arafat from terrorist to statesman now assure us that Hamas leaders similarly will be transformed by the process of governance. Fatah was supposed to control Hamas; now, presumably, Hamas will control itself. Halevi's concluding paragraph is even gloomier, but I'll leave it to TNR subscribers to read. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2337 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Isn't Hamas, in addition to being all of the terrible things cited above, the group that organized community healthcare and schools and other basic services in the vacuum known as Palestinian leadership over the past several decades? If so, this would account for much of the political capital they enjoy. Anyone who addresses basic needs in a positive way will garner much goodwill, especially in the face of an obviously corrupt government, and despite their actions elsewhere." There's certainly a lot of truth in this, but I think you err in assuming mideasterners are not a bit more cynical than Americans. Hizbullah has played the same role in Lebanon that Hamas played in the Pal territories, and drove the Israelis out to boot. They were rewarded with electoral votes and a share of government power, but... "If my family is starving and you feed my child, I will be forever indebted to you." ...the Lebanese are no longer feeling particularly indebted to Hizbullah, which they have come to resent (at long last) for perpetuating Syria's grip over the country. Free meals and clothing only go so far. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 499 Registered: 2-2003 |
J. Crohn, From your post:
The logical error here is the implied equivalence of the Israeli government -- which the Israeli peace movement has criticized -- and Israel. The government of Israel and Israel are not the same thing. Do you also assert that the settlers who condemn Sharon for his Gaza withdrawal are placing all blame on "Israel" for the withdrawal?
Here you make a factual error. Advocacy of peace is not synonymous with pacificism. Peace Now was founded by several hundred Israeli Reserve Army combat officers, and it has subsequently relied heavily on the opinions and expertise of retired Israeli military and intelligence officers on what is best for Israeli security. There are moral aspects to Peace Now's opposition to the settlements. But the primary motivation is what is best for Israel's security. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2338 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I'm directing my criticism at the Sharon administration, which represents only part of Israel, and which in fact is now regarded as "anti-Israel" by significant parts of the Israeli public." I wonder what you mean by "significant parts of the Israeli public." Is this another way of saying "a vanishingly small minority"? "The logical error here is the implied equivalence of the Israeli government -- which the Israeli peace movement has criticized -- and Israel. The government of Israel and Israel are not the same thing." I'm afraid that's not true in any meaningful sense. The Sharon goverment, and Sharon in particular, has become wildly popular in Israel. So much so, in fact, that Israelis are likely to vote for Kadima, the centrist party Sharon established just before his stroke, in upcoming elections (even though Sharon himself is politically dead). They'll even vote for a Kadima led by Ehud Olmert, who has generally been to the right of Sharon, and who will run on a platform of continuing Sharon's policies. It is therefore very silly for someone who thinks Peace Now has any political relevance at this juncture to be lecturing others about errors in "logic" and "fact." Your quarrel, whether you like it or not, is with Israel and its people, not merely with Likud. "Advocacy of peace is not synonymous with pacificism." I think it is in your case. "There are moral aspects to Peace Now's opposition to the settlements. But the primary motivation is what is best for Israel's security." Well, you have not merely expressed here some opposition to settlements (which one can have without accepting a fallacy about the Palestinians' readiness for peace or even statehood), nor any special interest in Israel's security. You have claimed that Hamas's ascendancy is because Sharon didn't properly foster Abbas--version 2,034 of a rote position taken by all leftists at all times. You seem to believe in essence that if only Israel were good, Israel would be secure. But most Israelis have concluded by now that this is factually incorrect, and therefore an illogical belief to hold onto. Sharon's success in drastically reducing the number of suicide attacks inside Israel (through force, which leftists and pacifists insist doesn't work), along with the intifada and the failure of Barak and Arafat at Camp David and the failure of Oslo in general, is why the peace movement in Israel is now only a fringe contingent. It is precisely because a majority of Israelis have judged Shalom Achshav and Gush Shalom et al. to be spectacularly wrong--and Sharon right--that those organizations no longer have any political clout. (At least they don't at the moment; if ever the Palestinians put forth a leadership capable of governing and providing for its people, and maintaining a monopoly on violence, and if that leadership is prepared to negotiate a series of interim agreements with Israel, this might change. I'm not even as pessimistic as Halevi that Hamas might be that leadership.) In any case, it does not help your argument to hide behind Peace Now's skirts. Not only is peace not available now, I'm sure your thinking is quite independent of that organization, and would be identical if it had never existed. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2555 Registered: 6-2002 |
I wish I could agree with Paul but I feel constrained to agree with Ms. Crohn. Her view is the more realistic. Our next door neighbors, the Canadians just elected a "Conservative" government. Imagine if they had elected Al Queda because Al Queda was not corrupt like the Liberals and Conservatives and had done a good job of providing community services like health care and education in Canada. How would the US react? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 501 Registered: 2-2003 |
Anon, I'm not sure where we disagree. I support the positions of Americans for Peace Now (APN), a Jewish-American support group for the Israeli peace group Peace Now, and the American Task Force on Palestine (AFTP), a Palestinian-American group that advocates nonviolence and a two-state solution which recognizes Israel as a Jewish state. Near the top of this thread I posted the statements of APN and AFTP on the Hamas election victory. AFTP urged nonviolence and negotiations. The section in APN's statement relevant to your post is:
J. Crohn, Most of the Israeli settler movement and the right wing of Likud has critized Sharon for the Gaza withdrawal. I suspect this is between 10-30% of the Israeli population, which is why I used the term "significant." Under the logic you apply to the Israeli peace movement, in which you characterize its criticism of Sharon as "blaming Israel" my question to you again is -- do you assert that the settlers and Likud "blame Israel" for the Gaza withdrawal? On the issue of whether the peace movement is a "fringe contingent," -- that's not a rebuttal of the movement's positions. But on the issue of whether Peace Now is a "fringe contingent," here's a photo of a Peace Now demonstration in Rabin Square in May 2004:  news.bbc.co.uk/1/ hi/in_pictures/3718595.stm | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14495 Registered: 10-2001  |
How many two state solutions must we have? If the two state solution suggested here is somehow adopted, wouldn't it in fact be a three state solution? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 502 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois, Please clarify. The two-state solution involves Israel and a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, with E Jerusalem its capital. What are the three states you refer to? | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2339 Registered: 3-2003 |
Most of the Israeli settler movement and the right wing of Likud has critized Sharon for the Gaza withdrawal. I suspect this is between 10-30% of the Israeli population, which is why I used the term "significant." Come on, Paul. Surely you're not that confused. And surely you don't think anyone reading is unaware that the settler movement is not what you were referencing upthread when you said that significant portions of the Israeli public considered Sharon's policies "anti-Israel"! Right-wing critics of Sharon are the antithesis of left-wing critics of Sharon. The latter object to Sharon's policies of wall-bulding, targeted asassinations, checkpoint restrictions, incursions, and unilateralism generally on the grounds that these stratagems are cruel and/or unfair to the Palestinians, who they believe will only fight back harder, thereby further harming the Jewish state. Moreover, the left holds (as does the center) that oppression of another people is corrosive to Israeli and Jewish moral identity. But right-wing critics of Sharon welcome all hardline tactics except for wall-building (because it de facto cedes parts of the WB to Palestinians) and withdrawal of any kind from what they regard as land that is theirs by divine right and/or conquest. That is what they mean by "anti-Israel," and their critique does not entail anything about negotiating with the Palestinians. You cannot, therefore, logically or honestly adduce the right wing critique of Sharon to your (or Peace Now's) left-wing critique of Sharon. APN has called on the international community to make a concerted effort to pressure Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist and to abandon violence against Israel. Thanks, but no thanks. Israelis have had quite enough of the pretense of acceptance. Arafat for too long played the game of saying one thing in English in front of the press and another in Arabic to his supporters. Israelis are not interested in that game any more, and Hamas won't play it anyway. Not only should the international community tell Americans for Peace Now to wake up from its reverie in which "if we pretend, it will come true," APN should recognize that a diplomatic process premised on fictions encourages cheating on both sides, as happened during Oslo. APN has put forth that Israel should negotiate with anyone who recognizes its right to exist, is willing to talk peace with it, and rejects violence and terrorism. We’ve noted that this is not currently the case with Hamas. But just as soon as Hamas starts making soothing sounds in public, APN will pounce and declare that everything is fine and Israel must now make peace. And of course, there will be ample pressure on Hamas: If Hamas wants to survive politically, it will have to change. Unlike the Iranians, they are economically dependent on outside support. Quite true. Only, the "change" you speak of will merely be a skein laid on top of reality to allow western interests and occupation-weary Israelis (not to mention American Jews who wish we could be seen by the rest of the world as helpless and blameless again) to delude themsleves into glossing over a far less secure Israel in exchange for a BS promise that buying into a new Palestinian fiction will make them good, decent, and (crucially for western governments) more popular among Arabs. Here is what I want to know, Paul: is there anything on earth capable of persuading you that middle east stability depends not on mutual recognition, negotiations, and peace demonstrations but on military action, separation, disengagement, and Israeli unilateralism? Because if you cannot honestly entertain that possibility, then you cannot assess this situation from any standpoint but a pacifist one. That's faith-based reasoning, and I reject it from leftists just as I reject it from the likes of George W. Bush. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10461 Registered: 5-2001 |
There is an old sports saying that you have to play the team you have, not the one you want. At this point, like it or not, Israel and the United States has got to deal with the Palestinian government they have, not the one they want. Hamas has offered to extend the current cease fire. Will Israel take them up on it? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 503 Registered: 2-2003 |
J Crohn, Let me try again: You describe the Israeli peace movement as a "blame Israel" movement when it criticizes Israeli government policies. Yet you refrain from describing the Israeli right wing as a "blame Israel" movement when it criticizes Israeli government policies. Your argument is that Israelis who support hardline policies and oppose peace initiatives are "pro-Israel" and that Israelis who oppose hardline policies and support peace initiatives are "anti-Israel." This a typical demagogic ploy used by war advocates, in Israel, the US and elsewhere, to intimidate peace advocates by calling them unpatriotic. The fact is that the Israeli peace movement is as patriotic and pro-Israel as the Israeli hardliners. Just as the US peace movement is as patriotic and pro-US as US hardliners. But demagogic attacks are a typical ploy of those who fear an honest debate on the facts. It's much easier -- and often more effective -- to engage in name-calling and fear-mongering. But that isn't patriotic and it doesn't serve the interests of the countries involved. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 267 Registered: 10-2005 |
How to lose interest of all posters within a thread but yourself: 1. Write a 9 paragraph theme. 2. See number 1. good-bye | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14496 Registered: 10-2001 |
Paul, Surely you know that when Israel was created, the vast majority of the partitioned land was given to the the Arabs in the form of Transjordan which was subsequently annexed by Jordan. The original partition plan was a two-state solution. Somehow, this historical fact has been conveniently forgotten by those who continuously rail against big bad Israel. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 504 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sbenois, The 1947 partition plan called for Palestine to be divided into two states: A Jewish state and an Arab state. Jerusalem was to be an international city.  http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/3cbe4ee1ef30169085256b98006f540d!OpenDocument | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2340 Registered: 3-2003 |
You describe the Israeli peace movement as a "blame Israel" movement when it criticizes Israeli government policies. No, I described leftists in general as having an unyielding tendency to assume Israel is at fault for Palestinian intransigence: "…the fault for Palestinian intransigence MUST be laid at Israel's feet in all cases; it's a leftist article of faith." And I said that the Israeli peace movement in general tends to place blame on Israel routinely: "...the Israeli peace movement--or what's left of its various parts in the wake of the intifada--places all blame at the feet of Israel as a matter of course!" In what way is this not true? Many leftists worldwide, including many even in the Israeli peace movement, believe Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. All Palestinian wrongs therefore are thought to flow inexorably from Zionism's original sin. There are Israelis in movements like Peace Now who do not hold such views, but who believe nevertheless that Israel has a greater responsibility and capability to direct the Palestinians toward peace and coexistence than it actually does. And this too is based on faith—that the weak are freer of blame than the powerful, and so the powerful bear a greater moral burden to seek peace than the weak. Thus, Israel is to blame when the weak are not pragmatic enough. Yet you refrain from describing the Israeli right wing as a "blame Israel" movement when it criticizes Israeli government policies. But why should I, when the right wing never blames Israel's power or existence for Palestinian intransigence? The right wing isn’t even necessarily anti-government. Do you recall the slogan the settlers used to protest the Gaza withdrawal? "We love you Sharon--but we're voting no." Your argument is that Israelis who support hardline policies and oppose peace initiatives are "pro-Israel" and that Israelis who oppose hardline policies and support peace initiatives are "anti-Israel." Not at all. I guess it would be easier for your position if I held such crude views. What I do think is that leftists hold certain beliefs that obscure their capacity to think objectively about the ability of the Palestinians to establish a state or peaceful relations any time in the forseeable future. The far right is also mistaken, but for different reasons. This a typical demagogic ploy used by war advocates, in Israel, the US and elsewhere, to intimidate peace advocates by calling them unpatriotic. No one is intimidating you, and I never called anyone unpatriotic. Just foolish and hideously doctrinaire. By the way, what is a "war advocate"? Someone who insists on war everywhere and always, the way pacifists insist peace is everywhere and always the only solution? Or is a "war advocate" someone who admits that war is inevitable when other options are not preferable to the parties in question? The fact is that the Israeli peace movement is as patriotic and pro-Israel as the Israeli hardliners. Just as the US peace movement is as patriotic and pro-US as US hardliners. ? But I have no quarrel with this statement. You seem to be attempting to extend some boilerplate response to American rightwing critics of US anti-Iraq war activists to our exchange here. I'm not sure why, since I don't much agree with the rightwing critique. I think people like Cindy Sheehan may be wrong (or partially wrong), but I certainly don't consider them, or Peace Now, "unpatriotic." I should add, though, that I don't think patriotism in itself is necessarily a virtue. "But demagogic attacks are a typical ploy of those who fear an honest debate on the facts. It's much easier -- and often more effective -- to engage in name-calling and fear-mongering. But that isn't patriotic and it doesn't serve the interests of the countries involved." I haven't called you any names, nor claimed superior patriotism. I have not engaged in "fear-mongering," whatever that means in this context. And I don't fear an honest debate on the facts. In any case, you have not offered one. You've simply run through a checklist of lobbyists' debating tactics. (Step One: Use semantic arguments to pretend your opponent is guilty of faulty logic. Step Two: Claim your opponent has an errant grasp of "facts." Step Three: Charge that your opponent is a demagogue. Etc.). Meanwhile, I have accused you of holding views based first and foremost on a quasi-religious belief in the availability of peace, not on a dry-eyed, unsentimental view of the political dynamics in the middle east. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 506 Registered: 2-2003 |
Characterizing the Israeli peace movement as a "blame Israel" movement when in fact it is not blaming Israel but is blaming the Israeli government, is name-calling and demgogic. Your attempt to associate Peace Now with the view that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state is pure disinformation. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2341 Registered: 3-2003 |
Well, the organization has been around a while. This assessment dates back from the '90s: Gilad Haymann, long-time member of Peace Now, continues to attack the organization for its support of the Palestinian cause. Haymann, an assistant to Labor MK Ophir Pines, recently wrote an op-ed piece in Ha'aretz newspaper attacking Peace Now for becoming "a small extremist movement [which] does not act today out of concern for Israeli interests but rather from an almost blind identification with the Palestinians". In an interview with Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA yesterday, Haymann said, "Peace Now has taken the attitude of not being concerned with the needs of Israel while maintaining that the Palestinians can do no wrong. Consider for example that after the bombing of Apropo, poet Daliah Ravikovitch was on the Popolitika TV show and she started talking about Goldstein and the Hevron massacre when the discussion was about Apropo. But what the terrorist did in Apropo was just as serious as Goldstein. The Palestinians have bad intentions... The Palestinians may need help, but they are the other side. What troubles me is the euphoria, excitement and support for Faisal Husseini when he came up to talk at the rally at Har Homa the day of the Apropo bombing. Sali Reshef spoke before him and did not get much applause, but Husseini did... The ideological message of Peace Now is right. But when you carry out negotiations with the Arabs, it should be discussion - not identification". | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 508 Registered: 2-2003 |
J. Crohn, I just checked out the website where you got the disparaging quote about Peace Now. There's a banner on it that says "CNN Lies" [ http://www.yahoodi.com/index.html] I found the following tidbit from the same website that gives a sense of the ideological bent behind your quote:
| ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2342 Registered: 3-2003 |
Here's a more recent comment, by way of Wikipedia: Peace Now hostility toward the settlers and its perceived lack of criticism of Palestinian Resistance can be seen to have decreased its standing within certain sections of the Israeli public. On March 19, 2005, a pro-disengagement rally was not successful in attracting anything near its planned attendance, after only 10,000 people attended the demonstration. Critics assert that the failure is related to Yariv Oppemheimer (Peace Now's leader) strong criticism of the settlers and the radical left-wing image which may have caused centerists and mainstream public to refrain from supporting the rally. In contrast, the group itself asserts that the public visibility of the issue in Ariel Sharon's cabinet had lead the Israeli public to assume that disengagement was a foregone conclusion and therefore view the rally as of little importance. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 510 Registered: 2-2003 |
This quote is generally accurate. Yes, Peace Now is absolutely opposed to the settlements and wants them dismantled. Note the article's emphasis on the "PERCEIVED lack of criticism of Palestinian Resistance." Yes, there is such a false perception among segments of the population, resulting from the disinformation campaigns against Peace Now, of the sort that you have cited. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2343 Registered: 3-2003 |
From Jerusalem Wire, a right-wing, pro-settlement site: The leftist Peace Now organization, which vociferously denies the Jews’ right to their biblical heartland, attempted to counter the pro-settler movement with a rally of their own in Tel Aviv Saturday evening. Who's the demagogue here? |
