By Edward
Israel just doesn’t get it. Again and again, despite constant objections from world leaders who they must by now understand are on their side, they expand their contentious settlements just when there seems to be real hope for peace with the Palestinians. And they’re at it again:
On Monday, Israel publicly confirmed plans to expand the already large settlement a few miles east of Jerusalem called Maale Adumim. In a community already housing 30,000 residents – not to mention a Blockbuster Video, Ace Hardware and other shops – Israel plans to build an additional 3,500 new housing units.
The Palestinians have rightly criticized this as a major obstacle to ever resolving one of the most emotional and intractable issues between the two: the final borders of Israel and eventually Palestine, and the dividing up of Jerusalem.
Now nearly every time I’ve debated the issue of expanding settlements in Israel in the blogosphere, someone has come along and argued what they consider the technically legal or the morally legitimate rationales behind further expansions. But enough is truly enough here:
We all know that any final peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians will have to include an adjustment of borders; returning to the 1967 lines is fine in theory, but there are too many Israeli Jews living outside those boundaries to expect all of them to move. But that is precisely why adding to those numbers right now is so cynical. And claims by the Israelis that they never intend to give certain settlements back anyway just don’t cut it.
They don’t cut it because they’re logically as sound as the rationale behind the obnoxious childhood torment "I’m not touching you." You know this game, one child puts his hand or index finger as close to another child as possible without actually touching them, but clearly close enough to harass them. The antagonist defends this invasion of personal space when challenged with the ludicrous non sequitor "But I’m not touching you."
What is happening socially in this game is truly insidious. The antagonist unilaterally sets a threshold that seems rational when reported to third-parties: "I didn’t touch her, Mom." As anyone stupid enough to play this game for too long has learned, however, the person being antagonized eventually strikes back, usually quite forcefully. Of course, the antagonist can then go complain about the injustice of this retaliation, but there’s no doubt in the other’s mind that the retaliation was justified.
When children play this game, their ultimate motivation seems to be entertainment. With Israel, however, it’s clearly an attempt, as the NYT’s called it, to "stack the deck before peace talks even begin by expanding the Jewish presence around the traditionally Arab eastern parts of Jerusalem."
Israel cannot simultaneously set a unilateral threshold regarding settlements and expect the Palestinians to trust them. Sharon is seriously undercutting Abbas’ credibility with the militants here. Eventually, the militants will strike back, and no amount of claiming "I’m not touching you" will stop that.
Given Ariel Sharon’s very clear stance, this disappoints, but does not surprise me.
See Avi Shlaim on Ariel Sharon: good summary of Ariel Sharon’s basic position on the Israel/Palestine conflict and the two-state solution.
Sharon is seriously undercutting Abbas’ credibility with the militants here. Eventually, the militants will strike back, and no amount of claiming “I’m not touching you” will stop that.
Of course. This is Sharon’s basic strategy – ceasefires have been broken repeatedly by Israel assassinating a Palestinian alleged to be a terrorist leader*, using methods calculated to do damage to nearby civilians, in the full knowledge that Palestinian militants would then retaliate.
*Many, if not all, of the Palestinians so targetted may well have been terrorist leaders. This does not affect my opinion of the Israeli strategy of planning an assassination as a means of ending a ceasefire – nor indeed my opinion of “extrajudicial killings”, especially not when carried out by means that harm bystanders.
Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, “Welcome LGFers!”
Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, “Welcome LGFers!”
Heh. Would it make any difference if Edward changed it to the (more accurate, in my opinion) sentence “Ariel Sharon just doesn’t get it”?
Many Israelis do get why this is a bad idea. (Many don’t, of course.)
Whoo boy. Based solely on the first sentence that shows up in the feed, let me make a prediction and say, “Welcome LGFers!”
That would be the target audience.
Heh. Would it make any difference if Edward changed it to the (more accurate, in my opinion) sentence “Ariel Sharon just doesn’t get it”?
I had considered that, but as long as they keep electing Sharon, I feel it’s fair to call the entire nation on this.
More accurate to say the hard right fanatics in Isreal just don’t get it, My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.
My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.
Again, then, get rid of Sharon.
Edward: I had considered that, but as long as they keep electing Sharon, I feel it’s fair to call the entire nation on this.
Hmmm… is there any Israeli equivalent of Sorry Everybody?
BSR: My impression is that the majority of Isrealis would agree with you that expanding these settlements is a very bad move.
Agreed. The amount of money that goes into supporting the settlements really isn’t liked by most Israelis. But Edward has a point too – for most Israelis, feelings about the settlements, and about the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, are exceedingly complex.
A friend who lived in Israel for five years or so is due to visit next week, and if I think we can have a conversation without blowing each other up, I might try to “interview” him for my livejournal.
Hmm, I guess all that is happening on the Israeli-Palestinian issue front is the expansion of a suburb. Weird that this is taking place in a time of no internal stresses in the governing coalition and the total absence of historic changes in Israeli policy. Strange that Sharon can manage this in the face of overwhelming domestic opposition.
rilkefan,
could you turn up the sarcasm highlighter on that for me? Not sure what to focus on.
Edward, who’s running Jericho today?
you switch brains with Timmy, rilkefan? ;-p
The Palestinians are running Jericho. Are you suggesting that excuses the expansion?
Has Israel released any prisoners lately, Edward? (Wow, this is more effort than it appears to be.) I mean, since Israel just doesn’t get it, one would expect them to be not doing that.
Has Israel released any prisoners lately, Edward? (Wow, this is more effort than it appears to be.) I mean, since Israel just doesn’t get it, one would expect them to be not doing that.
You should ask Timmy for lessons then…he’s the master of disagreement via ambiguity. 😉
Please make your point, specifically on topic (i.e., settlements), if you don’t mind.
From what you’ve supplied so far, the only conclusion I can come to about how you feel about this is that America and the rest of the world should just ignore the expansion of housing units in Maale Adumim.
I think you need Sharon to pull off the Gaza pullout. I wish the settlements around Jerusalema and the West Bank would stop, but I don’t see the situation getting better under a Labor PM.
I think what rilkefan is getting at is that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right. It’s all about baby steps.
To be fair, that should be “everything else right.”
SomeCallMeTim: that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right.
It’s not a question of “not doing things right”, though. It’s a question of actively doing things wrong. The settlements being there at all is a touchy area: expanding them is provocative. Deliberately so.
I think what rilkefan is getting at is that as Israeli policy has changed as to do something right, we should get off their backs about doing anything else right. It’s all about baby steps.
I disagree. Abbas is also doing everything else right. It’s not as if Israel is the only side making efforts here.
Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be borders. So releasing hostages and other such gestures, while laudable, do not reverse the harm caused by new settlements.
Last I heard, Sharon is turning over Gaza and the northern West Bank, freeing prisoners, ignoring Abbas’s flirtation with terrorists, agreeing not to kill terrorists, not retaliating after some attacks, and broadening his governing coalition to include people from the left. It’s ten steps forward, one step back (and that one step may well be explicable as helping to make the ten steps politically feasible). And you’re mentioning the one step as if that’s all that’s happening.
Imagine for a moment that someone had put up a post here along the lines of, “Abbas just doesn’t get it. He’s getting carried around on the shoulders of terrorists. Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be overcoming Hamas et al.” What would your reaction be?
So boo, hiss.
Rilkefan:
I think you need to re-read your Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility; it might suck, but we expect people more of people who clearly have the whip hand.
And you’re mentioning the one step as if that’s all that’s happening.
That is one very important step, Rilke. It’s one area in which the Israelis have again and again and again broken agreements with the Palestinians. It’s a touchy area, for exactly the reasons Edward outlines.
This is an active step against the peace process.
Ultimately, the most important/difficult part of a lasting peace will be overcoming Hamas et al.” What would your reaction be?
Do you think that overcoming Hamas is going to be as easy for Abbas as not expanding settlements is for Sharon? Seriously, Rilke, is this your argument?
And you’re mentioning the one step as if that’s all that’s happening.
This one step, more than any other, seems to me designed to provoke. Like the child putting his hand in his sister’s face, Israel knows how the Palestinians have traditionally responded to expansions. Is this latest expansion just some test of Abbas’s commitment to peace on Sharon’s part? That’s certainly the most generous reading of it I can imagine.
The Times AND the US State Department both get it right, IMO. There needs to be an end to the settlement activitiy.
erm, Edward, since you Americans keep electing Bush, I guess it’s only fair to blame you personally, as an American, for Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and whathaveyou …
erm, Edward, since you Americans keep electing Bush, I guess it’s only fair to blame you personally, as an American, for Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and whathaveyou …
Me personally? No (I voted for Kerry). Us, as a nation, absolutely.
Me? no. Us? yes. Slightly contradictory on the face of it, but I’m sure one could rhetorically wiggle one’s way out of this muddle, had you not cut off that possibility by blaming “the entire nation“, which by definition designates each and every one of its citizens.
You seem to be arguing semantics in lieu of an argument worth sharing about the topic, novakant.
It’s more than common practice to discuss the actions of a democratic nations’ leader as representing enough of the population to justify this usage. Again, I do so intentionally, as an expression of my opinion that each and every one of Israel’s citizens should protest Sharon’s decision. If they’ve done so in the past, then now’s the time to convince their neighbors who haven’t to join them. Eventually, if Sharon won’t listen, they have to chuck him out.
Picking apart my prose won’t stop the militants from killing more people.
With Abbas’ great power comes great responsibility, right?
With Abbas’ great power comes great responsibility, right?
Yes. Criticism of Abbas is certainly valid. It just doesn’t justify expanding the settlements.
Slarti: With Abbas’ great power comes great responsibility, right?
Indeed. I am not, however, aware that Abbas is taking active steps against the peace process, as Ariel Sharon is doing by expanding the settlements.
As Sharon has greater power than Abbas, he has greater responsibility.
If the post had been framed as “Israel has been making great strides in helping the PA and moving towards a reasonable settlement, but expanding this suburb threatens to scuttle all that progress”, and then had presented at least a scintilla of evidence, it would have been interesting. If it had been framed, “People who dislike settlement expansion but feel Sharon’s overall policy is right and are willing to accept that he has to throw a bone to the right to implement that overall policy – they’re wrong because blah”, well, that would have been interesting. This is instead a “hey, look at this news story, isn’t it awful full stop” post.
This is instead a “hey, look at this news story, isn’t it awful full stop” post.
Rilkefan,
I understand your desire for balance here. I’m not implying Sharon isn’t working for peace. I simply do not understand why, in the face of all that’s come before this window of opportunity, he can’t hold off on this sort of thing. It really doesn’t matter what other wonderful things he does, if this single gesture undoes it all.
You ask for evidence that this will derail the peace process. This came in response to the announcment that Sharon was going to unilaterally annex the “suburb”:
What you’re failing to offer here is a justification for the expansion that recognizes the risk.
Edward, even The Guardian and the BBC, who can hardly be faulted for being insufficiently critical of Sharon’s policies, are painting a differentiated picture of Israeli society and its very diverse political landscape. Yet, you will blame even left-wing and moderate Isrealis for not sufficiently convincing their neighbour to “chuck out” Sharon (whatever that is supposed to mean in a democracy), and if they fail to do so they’re guilty too.
The US government is right now actively involved in the illegal detention and torture of thousands of people around the world and a majority of your fellow citizens at least condone those policies. Good luck convincing them otherwise, else you’re guilty too.
Yet, you will blame even left-wing and moderate Isrealis for not sufficiently convincing their neighbour to “chuck out” Sharon
Water it down all you want. There are potential real world consequences so much more important than whether I’m hurting feelings by lumping those who oppose expansion in under the umbrella of “Isreal” or not.
I actually fear what this move might bring. That’s my concern here. Not whether another 3,500 apartments get built, but rather whether the militants see it as a breach of faith and it causes them to stop listening to Abbas, and the violence will start up again. And it’s not totally selfless either. This seemingly endless conflict is used quite successfully for recruiting purposes by the bastards who flew planes into buildings just a few blocks from my house. I really don’t give a rat’s ass if I offend the Israelis or the Palestinians by not wrapping my criticism in praise first. This whole freakin’ mess needs to end!
3500 additional new units are not worth one more life (Isreali, Palestinian, or American), I’m sorry. Make the relatively minor sacrifices needed to seal the peace and make them now!
Israel’s dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. Fortunately for them, their Arab opponents also did not want peace, enabling Israel to conduct an expansionist strategy and ethnic cleansing in the name of security.
Sharon’s pull-out from Gaza and a few trivial West Bank settlements has always been accompanied by plans to expand into other areas in the West Bank. This new development in the West Bank is business as usual.
“Israel’s dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. Fortunately for them, their Arab opponents also did not want peace, enabling Israel to conduct an expansionist strategy and ethnic cleansing in the name of security.”
The anti-Israel crowds’ position for 60 years has been to hope for Israel to be humiliated or destroyed. Fortunately for them, Israel has survived despite two wars against it and a long-term terror campaign, enabling them to ignore Israel’s side of the argument and to avoid the bad karma from that humiliation or destruction.
See? Argument/evidence-free comments ok, argument/evidence-free posts not ok.
“the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, warned a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists that unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas.”
Weak beer to the point of being water, not that water’s a bad thing – it would have improved the post. What’s Qureia’s tone here, exactly? “This is bad, but we’ll accept it because we’re happy on all other fronts” perhaps? It’s as predictable that the PA PM will say _something_ non-positive as that Juan Cole will. At least Cole will have some insight from his experience and perspective. I don’t expect him to be balanced – I expect him to argue the merits.
Deliberately “lumping together” all of Israel’s citizens as supporting expansionism is on the same level as blaming “Islam” and “the Muslims” for 9/11 and Osama, unless they publicly and repeatedly denounce such excesses. In the same vein why not blame each and every Palestinian for every bus and cafe that has been blown up, there weren’t too many on the streets protesting such actions either.
I regularly get tired of the endless “peace process” going maybe someday somewhere, too. But your stance is unrealistic, arrogant and counterproductive.
Does the entire city of Jerusalem count as a ‘settlement’?
How far ‘east of Jerusalem’ is the settlement in question? Are we talking about a suburb? The answer appears to be about 4 kilometers from the formal border of Jerusalem proper. More than 25,000 Israelis already live there (there being the ‘settlement’ in question), many since 1983.
Abandoning Maale Adumim was not part of the negotiation with Arafat in 2000.
I would be willing to do suggest that different ‘settlements’ have different levels of legitimacy. I’m certainly not willing to call Israelis living in Jerusalem itself ‘settlers’ even though the PLO is. I’m not willing to condemn housing in the greater metropolitan area to the same degree as settlements on top of the border with Jordan.
Deliberately “lumping together” all of Israel’s citizens as supporting expansionism is on the same level as blaming “Islam” and “the Muslims” for 9/11 and Osama, unless they publicly and repeatedly denounce such excesses.
If Muslim states were democracies that re-elected leaders who, without fail, supported bin Laden, your analogy would be a fair one. It is, instead, a false one.
“If Muslim states were democracies that re-elected leaders who, without fail, supported bin Laden, your analogy would be a fair one. It is, instead, a false one.”
Note that several recent Israeli govts have tried to return the territories (plus of course the original attempt in ’67). And note that you here sign up for any US policy supported by the last few administrations. Why are you against welfare?
everyone, save perhaps Sebastian’s last comment, is successfully avoiding any rational explanation for the expansion (and the US State Department sees it as the sort of settlement activity is opposes, so let’s not split hairs too finely) that justifies the risk.
This seems such a minor sacrifice to make at this juncture, I can’t help but believe it signifies an aversion to actually 1) being fair or 2) making peace.
“This seems such a minor sacrifice to make at this juncture, I can’t help but believe it signifies an aversion to actually 1) being fair or 2) making peace.”
But that begs the question. Is it fair to label Israelis in and around Jerusalem settlers? And make no mistake, the PLO believes that Israelis in Jerusalem are settlers too. Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs? You assume it does. I don’t think it is at all obvious. If the Palestinians had agreed to borders in 2000 we could point to the borders and say this yes, that no. (And if the 2000 proposal had been accepted this suburb would be part of Israel.)
Rilkefan: “This is bad, but we’ll accept it because we’re happy on all other fronts” perhaps?
I don’t see how you derive the last 11 words of your interpretation of Ahmed Qureia’s warning that “unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas.”
You may hope that the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts and will accept Sharon’s aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly… but somehow I doubt it. Freezing the settlement expansion is something the Israelis have agreed to, again and again, and always broken the agreement. That Sharon proposes to break the agreement again is no trivial bad news.
But that begs the question. Is it fair to label Israelis in and around Jerusalem settlers? And make no mistake, the PLO believes that Israelis in Jerusalem are settlers too. Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs? You assume it does. I don’t think it is at all obvious.
Two things wrong with that, Sebastian. First and foremost is the insinuation that because the PLO thinks their settlers, it’s wrong for anyone else to. That’s illogical and a bit offensive.
Second though, the State Department, who wants peace AND Israeli security, clearly opposes “settlement activity.” You can split the hairs as finely as you like as an intellectual exercise about whether this should qualify as such, but if it strikes enough Palestinians as a unilateral “f*ck you”, their response won’t be quite so subtle.
My point is even if this does not qualify as “settlement activity” or expansion or whatever (and the Times is clearly convinced it does, I might add), why not hold off until the borders are agreed to? Why this constant agitation?
Sebastian: If the Palestinians had agreed to borders in 2000 we could point to the borders and say this yes, that no.
You mean, if Prime Minister Barak hadn’t broken off the Taba negotiations? It’s a pity that Barak ended Taba in January 2001, before an agreement could be reached, but it’s hardly the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.
But that’s water under the bridge. The point is now Sharon has to show that he is at least as serious about the peace process as Abbas is. A freeze on settlements is the right thing to do. Expansion is profoundly the wrong thing.
Jes,
On what planet do you live?
Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai in return for peace, in the process physically ejecting Israeli settlers and destroying their homes so they could not return.
smlook
perhaps you could be more specific, you know, so that this doesn’t seem a deliberate, posting-rules-breaking attempt to disrupt the conversation for its own sake sort of thing.
Note that several recent Israeli govts have tried to return the territories
No recent Israeli government has tried to relinquish control of the territories’ borders, nor of their airspace, nor of their water supplies, nor of the main roads within the territories, etc. I can go on here. Your definition of “return” is a very loose one.
And note that you here sign up for any US policy supported by the last few administrations
Depends on whether you are using the plural you. Trying to limit responsibility to one person, when that person is the choice of a plurality of those with a preference, makes no sense. Certainly not in the case of a re-elected leader.
Israel is spelled with the “a” before the “e”. I normally don’t care about spelling that much, but for some inscrutable reason this error bugs me.
Novakent, it’s true many Israelis don’t like Sharon and some actively oppose him, but obviously he has enough support to be prime minister. I don’t have a problem with people wanting to blame Americans for Bush’s policies. Enough of us voted for Bush or didn’t do enough to oppose Bush so that most of us (including me) can’t complain if we’re all held responsible to some degree.
I don’t fully understand kneejerk defenses of Israel–it seems clear that Israel has a pretty bad record on human rights, going back to its founding. This ought to be as noncontroversial as saying that the Palestinian terrorism has been a morally despicable and pragmatically stupid way to fight Israel’s morally despicable policies. At least in the case of some friends of mine, I have the impression they think that criticism of Israel treads dangerously close to anti-semitism. They certainly don’t shy away from criticism of the Palestinians. Criticism of Israel, however is always offered in gingerly terms and usually accompanied by some claim (not always accurate) that some Arab action was worse.
“Two things wrong with that, Sebastian. First and foremost is the insinuation that because the PLO thinks their settlers, it’s wrong for anyone else to. That’s illogical and a bit offensive.”
No, I’ll be clearer.
I’m totally unwilling to call those living in Jerusalem ‘settlers’. Doing so is deciding in advance a question that is completely open: who is going to end up with Jerusalem? Or even who ought to end up with Jerusalem.
As such I’m not particularly convinced that building in the outskirts of Jerusalem–in the area which for any normal city would be called a suburb of Jerusalem–is ‘settlement’ in the specialized moral judgment sense of the word. My point is that calling those living in and around Jerusalem ‘settlers’ is like calling people who attack US soldiers ‘terrorists’. Doing so is applying a specific type of moral judgment by misusing the term. Those living in Jerusalem are not settlers by any fair use of the term. Those living along the border with Jordan definitely are. Those living in the immediate suburbs of Jerusalem (less than 3 miles from the formal city border and well within the greater metropolitan area) are not clearly settlers in the sense of the word you use.
Jesurgislac, “It’s a pity that Barak ended Taba in January 2001, before an agreement could be reached, but it’s hardly the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.”
Arafat walked out of the Camp David talks in 2000 and stirred up the bloody intifada to try to get a better deal. He was uninterested in stopping the violence which he started and as a result Barak realized that negotiating with him at Taba was worthless. It is precisely the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.
As such I’m not particularly convinced that building in the outskirts of Jerusalem–in the area which for any normal city would be called a suburb of Jerusalem–is ‘settlement’ in the specialized moral judgment sense of the word
The construction of most suburbs – and I am amazed this has to be pointed out to you – does not entail expelling the current residents and confiscating their land based on their ethnicity. Perhaps you may use your specialized moral judgement to discern the difference in the two cases.
I’m totally unwilling to call those living in Jerusalem ‘settlers’. Doing so is deciding in advance a question that is completely open: who is going to end up with Jerusalem? Or even who ought to end up with Jerusalem.
kind of off topic though. It’s the expansion that’s in question. Somewhere, they’re gonna have to draw a line. The more Israel expands the less likely it is that line will be drawn near those new structures. Again, the times nailed this. Israel is trying to “stack the deck before peace talks even begin by expanding the Jewish presence around the traditionally Arab eastern parts of Jerusalem.”
“The construction of most suburbs – and I am amazed this has to be pointed out to you – does not entail expelling the current residents and confiscating their land based on their ethnicity.”
The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago. So either it is not a new expansion (the complaint above) or you must be complaining about something else.
Edward, would you agree that Tel Aviv is traditionally Arab?
Sebastian: It is precisely the fault of the Palestinians that the Israeli Prime Minister refused to continue the Taba talks until an agreement could be reached.
When two parties are negotiating, and one party walks out and refuses to continue, then it’s plainly the party that walks out that ended the negotiations.
Whose fault it was that no agreement was reached is more complex.
Barak may have realized that he was surely going to lose the election (or be assassinated) if he made a fair agreement with the Palestinians. Sharon has always taken the position (see my link in my first comment on the thread) that nothing ought to be given up to the Palestinians – not peace, but conquest.
The point is not, however, to lay blame for the failure of talks at Camp David or at Taba on any one of the participants (and certainly not to cast a blanket blame on “the Palestinians” or “the Israelis”).
The point is not even to decide, right now, whether Jerusalem is to be Palestinian or Israeli or can be shared (or given to the Dalai Lama to be administered as an independent mini-state, or whatever solution): the point is to avoid trying to provoke either side in the middle of the peace process. Jerusalem is what was called in Camp David a “red line area” – neither side will abandon their claim to it.
That’s why it’s significant that there is settlement expansion there. That’s why Sharon should have frozen all settlement activity, including that in Jerusalem, or suburbs of. Whoever ends up in control of Jerusalem (and, I swear, the Dalai Lama looks more appealling by the minute) neither side should be trying to start a fight by aggressively asserting their claim right now.
That’s why what Sharon did is wrong.
Israel’s dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace.
Sixty years? Since 1945? The Palestinians have been trying to make peace since then? Somehow this escaped my notice.
“I don’t see how you derive the last 11 words of your interpretation of Ahmed Qureia’s warning that ‘unilateral moves by Mr Sharon undermined Mr Abbas.’
You may hope that the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts and will accept Sharon’s [purple prose snipped] expansionism calmly… but somehow I doubt it.”
Jes, the point is that I don’t know, and apparently you don’t know, and at least based on the evidence in this thread I’d guess Edward doesn’t know. That’s why people read Juan Cole or praktike or whoever.
And just a question – don’t _you_ hope the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts?
Edward, I presented two arguments originally – “suburb” and ‘political cover to carry out the policy’.
1.) I’m not blaming Kerry voters for Bush’s policies and in turn expect that Israelis opposed to Likud policies are not being blamed either. I was in the opposition party in my country for a very long time and strongly disliked most of the government’s policies, anybody blaming me for those policies with recourse to my nationality I simply cannot take seriously.
2.) Sharon can’t do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party. The political situation is very complex, you can read up on it here or over at Haaretz. Maybe this settlement expansion is a bone thrown to those otherwise opposed to the Gaza pullout, to passing the budget or to the further dismantling of settlements. Maybe Sharon wants to test out how far he can go, maybe it’s a pawn for further negotiations – nobody here knows. This is not to excuse expansion but to put things in perspective.
3.) Anybody here darkly hinting that the militant’s response won’t be quite so subtle or that they will not accept Sharon’s aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly should keep in mind that disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian’s part of the peace deal. The threatened violence is not an some inevitable natural force and should not be used as a pawn in the peace discussions either.
Um, I think the ones in the suburbs are clearly settlers, as it was conquered territory.
Rilkefan: And just a question – don’t _you_ hope the Palestinians are happy on all other fronts?
Yes. But I also hoped that Kerry would win the November 2004 election. And I hoped that pointing out the CT scan evidence that Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex would be enough to end the argument. And I hope that a giant meteor will not hit the Earth in 2024.
One can hope for all sorts of good outcomes.
Don’t you hope that Sharon will think better of his aggressive expansionism?
If I may add my two cents of light (or heat), the Ma’ale Adumim plan has all the hallmarks of a campaign promise – in other words, a proposal made to be retracted.
In eight days, Sharon is facing a budget vote that will decide the fate of his government, and the balance in the Knesset is still too close to call. If the budget doesn’t pass, Sharon will face a Likud leadership race on April 14. Much of the rank and file of the party is against the withdrawal from Gaza, so the timing of hte Ma’ale Adumim expansion (which has been proposed and shelved many times in the past) suggests an appeal to the voters. In the event that Sharon has to face Netanyahu and/or Uzi Landau next month for the leadership of the Likud, he’ll be able to point to the Ma’ale Adumim proposal as “proof” that the Gaza evacuation is tactical and he doesn’t intend to give up control of the area around Jerusalem.
If he survives the budget vote or wins the leadership race, it won’t be long before the expansion is found to cost too much or is withdrawn as a gesture to Abbas or the United States. It’s happened before.
Novakant: 2.) Sharon can’t do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party.
True.
3.) Anybody here darkly hinting that the militant’s response won’t be quite so subtle or that they will not accept Sharon’s aggressive anti-peace expansionism calmly should keep in mind that disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian’s part of the peace deal.
Which the Palestinians must keep to, but Sharon isn’t required to?
Why do you feel that Sharon can’t be expected to rein in his own party, but Abbas must rein in people who are not in his own party?
Pretty major double standard there, isn’t it?
“If I may add my two cents of light”
Thank god, actual information interjected into our blabbering.
Chuchundra:
Israel’s dominant position for 60 years has been to prefer acquiring and holding land over peace. …
Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai in return for peace, in the process physically ejecting Israeli settlers and destroying their homes so they could not return.
I think we agree — my point is not that they never surrender land, but that it is their dominant position.
After all, at the same time they gave up the Sinai, the Israelis started a program running for 25+ years now to eject Palestinian from their homes in the West Bank and settle it with Israeli settlers. Sharon is a key architect of the plan. The Reagan Administration in the 80s told them not to do it since it would obstruct peace — they gave us the finger and chose expanionism over peace.
The Sinai events you reference look a lot like currents events — trading Gaza settlements for more expansion in the West Bank, even at the expense of a possible peace.
“Why do you feel that Sharon can’t be expected to rein in his own party, but Abbas must rein in people who are not in his own party?
Pretty major double standard there, isn’t it?”
The distinction between the PLOs political wing and the terrorist wing remains largely illusory.
Building in the suburbs on land which has not been occupied by Palestinians for decades is different from blowing up kids in a coffee shop.
So unless double standard means treating things of different moral character differently, no.
No, it’s not a double standard:
Both face great obstacles in achieving the goals of the peace process. Abbas’ problems are obvious and might appear graver on the face of it, but Sharon can’t simply order dissenting Likud members and his coalition partners how to vote – it’s a pity, it’s called democracy.
“I think we agree — my point is not that they never surrender land, but that it is their dominant position.”
Actually, this is the only data point available. The Egyptians were willing and able to deliver peace. The other Arab countries (and later the PLO etc) were not.
So at least as Chuchundra has framed the question, you have no leg to stand on.
The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago
This is not true. Confiscation of Arab land and the expelling of Palestinians from their homes continues to this day.
Novakant: Both face great obstacles in achieving the goals of the peace process.
Indeed. And I take your point that Sharon has problems too. The double standard I noted comes from your presumption that Sharon must be excused any difficulties he has, but Abbas must not.
Sharon can’t simply order dissenting Likud members and his coalition partners how to vote – it’s a pity, it’s called democracy
Tell me, how did Sharon get his nickname, “The Bulldozer”? It was forced on him by Likud against his wishes? Perhaps not? You’re right though, it is a democracy. And the nation chose “The Bulldozer”. And they are responsible for that choice.
“The land in question today was taken by the government decades ago
This is not true. Confiscation of Arab land and the expelling of Palestinians from their homes continues to this day.”
The land in question is Maale Adumim. It was taken by the government decades ago.
The distinction between the PLOs political wing and the terrorist wing remains largely illusory.
Do we have conclusive evidence of this fact? I know it’s considered almost axiomatic in certain circles but I’ve never been able to make heads or tails of the PLO’s inner workings, let alone to the point where I would feel confident in making such a statement.
your presumption that Sharon must be excused any difficulties he has, but Abbas must not.
For chrissakes, where did I say that?
The land in question is Maale Adumim
You were speaking more generally, about the suburbs of Jerusalem. The confiscation of property based on ethnicity and the expelling of certain ethnic groups from their homes continues in the area today.
Actually, this is the only data point available.
Actually, it isn’t. Israel has also (1) given Taba back to Egypt after losing an international arbitration over whether it was part of the Sinai, and (2) given disputed land back to Jordan as part of the 1994 peace agreement.
And the nation chose “The Bulldozer”. And they are responsible for that choice.
Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi’s Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.
Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi’s Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.
First of all, cease the silly insults. Second, note that I clearly spoke of a nation taken as a whole. It is simply not sensible to state that responsibility for the policies of a democratic nation ends with that nation’s elected leader. When a nation is a democracy, that nation is responsible for the work of its public servants.
“Do we have conclusive evidence of this fact?”
It depends upon what you mean by conclusive evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence that the terrorist factions get a huge amount of their money from the PLO itself.
“You were speaking more generally, about the suburbs of Jerusalem. The confiscation of property based on ethnicity and the expelling of certain ethnic groups from their homes continues in the area today.”
Actually I was speaking about the topic of the post– Maale Adumim–which was taken by the government decades ago. I was talking about whether or not living in Maale Adumim meant you were a ‘settler’. I was suggesting that they answer was no, and certainly that the answer isn’t as clear as in many other areas. The allegation was that the settlements were expanding. I allege that A) Maale Adumim is not clearly a settlement as the term is used in the conflict and B) whatever it is, it isn’t new.
Actually I was speaking about the topic of the post
Actually, no you weren’t. You were talking about Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs. I know this because you wrote, “Does it contribute to peace to suggest that Israelis cannot live in Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs”?
Do you see that this does not limit the discussion to the topic of Maale Adumim, but instead talks about Jerusalem and its immediate suburbs?
When a nation is a democracy, that nation is responsible for the work of its public servants.
Responsibility is, in any sense of the word, tied to individual human beings. Nation is an abstraction subsuming all citizens living in a nation state, its laws and institutions. An abstraction cannot be responsible for anything, only individuals can. Are you trying to tell me that Katherine is responsible for extraordinary rendition or that a left-wing Israeli peace-activist is responsible for Sharon’s policies?
Yomtov:
Yes, 60 years — well, since 1948; I rounded the number.
A very short summary of this, without links (sorry — no time to dig them up now).
When the UN 1947 plan was drafted, they did demographics of the region at the time. Even within the smaller UN proposed boundaries, jews were only a large minority. The census maps are on-line.
During the 1948 war, the Israelis ethnically cleansed many areas in order to insure a majority jewish population and eliminate troubling Arab settlements, and also to expand the UN boundaries. The Israeli version was to pretend that they had nothing to do with Arabs fleeing and invited them to stay, but even Israeli historians no longer accept that propoganda line. My own personal view is that there was a mixture of fighting and ethnic cleansing, and a lot of Arabs fleeing in fear that Israelis were all to glad to indulge. But the Israelis did invent nonsense that they allegedly did not want Arabs to leave — apparently to deceive others regarding their ethnic cleansing behavior.
Saying that this is true does not mean I think the Arabs were the good guys — I just think we should be real about what happened.
Post-1967, visions of “Greater Israel” resulted in programs to annex the West Bank and other conquered territories. Same modus operandi — find ways to drive Palestinians from their land and appropriate it. The Reagan Administration in the 80s told the Israelis to stop settlements in the West Bank — they gave the US the finger instead.
Zionism always involved a huge contradiction — to create a jewish state in a land not populated by jews required that you must remove a large number of the non-jewish occupants. The 1948 founders of Israel were acutely and explicitly aware of this. Recent Israeli desires to expand into the West Bank are rooted in their historical identity — I don’t know if Israel can change, even though peace requires it. I know that there are Israelis who disagree strongly with expanionism, but they appear to be in the minority. There is also a minority that would today happily adopt a policy of ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from “Greater Israel.” I would submit that they are a majority of the settler movement.
felix, the only person with slightly better than vague access to SH‘s intentions are him. Why not just say “you could have been clearer about what you wre referring to” and go on to argue the facts?
Jonathan Edelstein, I guess Taba’s a nice spot, but aren’t those two cases you cite rather different in quality than the Sinai? Also there was the question of a border dispute with Lebanon which I think Israel allowed to be arbitrated – sort of in that (what I’m considering marginal) class of data.
dmbeaster, while it may amuse you to go over the past (in a way I find simplified and one-sided to the point of being in itself propaganda – but that’s neither here nor there), what about subject of the present post?
Novakant: your post at March 23, 2005 05:45 PM, point 2, where you excuse Sharon for this aggressive move against the peace process by saying “Sharon can’t do what he wants: he heads a very fragile coalition government and has to face strong opposition within his own party” but then point 3, where you assert
that “disarming and reigning in those people is the Palestinian’s part of the peace deal. The threatened violence is not an some inevitable natural force and should not be used as a pawn in the peace discussions either.”
In short, you assert a double standard: Sharon’s not to be blamed for anything that goes wrong because he can’t rein in his own party: Abbas is to be blamed if he can’t rein in the violent elements on the Palestinian side. How is this not a double standard?
“Sharon’s not to be blamed for anything that goes wrong because he can’t rein in his own party: Abbas is to be blamed if he can’t rein in the violent elements on the Palestinian side. How is this not a double standard?”
A) the ‘anything’ in question is building on land that was appropriated decades ago in areas that are not the same kind of settlements that we normally hear you talking about
B) as opposed to killing people on buses
Most moral standards are quite capable of distinguishing between the two thank you.
the ‘anything’ in question is building on land that was appropriated decades ago
In other words, “What are you complaining about? We stole that land fair and square”!
Note that Israel (rightly) does not accept such an argument when it comes to decades-ago confiscation of Jewish property by others.
I don’t excuse Sharon, I’m trying to make sense of the situation. Maybe it was a wanton assault on the peace process and Sharon is just evil, evil, evil, but I doubt it. A bone in the bargaining with those opposing the pullout and budget much is more likely. Other than bargaining Sharon could maybe declare martial law or else let his government collapse and we would all face Netanyahu as an alternative, both options highly undesirable.
I don’t blame Abbas, he is most likely rather powerless when faced with the militants, maybe though he uses them as an implicit threat. I simply state what the agreed obligations of the Palestinian side are.
Felix,
Impressive.
You somehow equate defenseless Jews attacked and killed by Nazi Germany throughout Europe and the openly hostile Arab army’s lined up at Israel’s border and having a proven history of attacking Israel.
Maybe it was a wanton assault on the peace process and Sharon is just evil, evil, evil, but I doubt it.
Well, it is a wanton assault on the peace process. Whether or not Sharon is evil is a matter for individual judgement.
I simply state what the agreed obligations of the Palestinian side are.
Indeed. And the agreed obligation of the Israelis, since 1993, has been to freeze the settlements. Why your double standard? Why do you treat the Israelis failing to meet their agreed obligations as if it were a “some inevitable natural force” that can rightfully be used as a pawn in the peace discussions – while insisting that the Palestinians must not fail to meet their agreed obligations?
Why do you treat the Israelis failing to meet their agreed obligations as if it were a “some inevitable natural force”…
A better question: Do you consider the present Israeli acts to be a failure to meet their agreed obligations and, if not, why not?
Yeah, right, and in your wacky world ObWi’s Katherine is responsible for Maher Arar having been tortured in Syria.
She is, and so am I and so is every American Citizen. That is the burden of living in a Democracy!!! The citizens of said democracy are responsible for the actions of their elected goverment.
rilkefan:
While I agree that dmbeaster’s 7:08pm post may be a bit oversimplified (and more than a bit slanted), the issues it raises are scarcely “ancient history” or irrelevant to today’s I/P problems. The events of 1948 are, as anyone who delves even moderately deeply into the Palestinian viewpoint (and not just to demonize them) will realize, THE central event of the modern history of their people; as central to the Palestinians’ worldview and historical memory as the Nazi Holocaust is to the Israelis (and of the same era). The “nakba” (catastrophe) of 1948 and its aftermath still affects the Palestinians’ leadership’s calculations as a sort of primal non-negotiable demand; usually simplified as “the Right of Return”, and still looms as probably THE single most intractable block to any sort of real “peace” in the Holy Land: most else is just trim. Remember, this is a VERY ancient land; 57 years is just a blip of history.
rilkefan:
I agree my post was 7:08 simplified. Its not slanted, except in the peculiar worldview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which you must simultaneously recant all atrocities by all sides to be “objective.”
My post simply focused on the Israeli lust for land, which is a disruptor of peace both in the past and now.
And by the way, that is the subject of this post.
Jay C, I certainly agree history is important – so leaving out half of it is a mistake. But I think the focus on one side or the other’s long list of grievances is not productive when circumstances have changed so much, esp. in view of the Clinton deal and Arafat’s death and Sharon’s belated realization of the demographic situation.
And note that above borders were claimed as The Issue. Fact is, there will be only a symbolic RoR. I perhaps have more hope than you do that to the younger Palestinians and PA leaders the events of 48 are of less import than the economic and political growth that peace will bring.
rilkefan:
I am certainly no Middle East expert (not that those who ARE always have much of a handle on situations there, either), but one thing I have observed over many years is that relying on “hope” that Israelis, or Palestinians, or anyone else in the region, for that matter will “do the right thing” to end (or even temporarily quell) their ongoing conflicts, is a sure road to disappointment.The force of self-interest is a much stronger mover: when both sides find it in their interest to come to an arrangement, they will: the problem has been that, up until just recently (as you point out), their interests have not coincided.
But I wouldn’t discount the potency of the mythos of grievances: they have fueled enough of the conflict up til now; hope that they will fade away enough to allow some sort of true “peace” (or, at the least, an enduring truce) seems to be an optimistic dream. And I hope to live long enough to be proved wrong.
“the Israeli lust for land”
Uhh, ok… Was going to say something about the complex reasons for the expansion but this is more deserving of a Burma Shave reply which I can’t come up with at the moment.
In the immediate aftermath of the six day war, Israel offered to return the land it had gained during the war for peace with the Arabs. I’m sure this was just more “lust for land” by the Israelis.
I should also note that between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan controlled the West Bank, no moves were made to give the region autonomy as an independent Arab state.
I should also note that between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan controlled the West Bank, no moves were made to give the region autonomy as an independent Arab state
The classic tu qouque fallacy. Look! Over there!
“The classic tu qouque fallacy. Look! Over there!”
This is a misinterpretation – note what was being responded to. Poster D says Group I is exceptional in way L, and poster C replies Refutation, plus group J shows an equivalent behavior.
note what was being responded to
dmbeaster did not assert that Israel’s failure to give Palestine autonomy is unique, not that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is somehow the exception in the world. He in fact compared Israel to other Arab states (saying neither wanted peace). The introduction of Jordan’s treatment of the Palestinians is indeed a tu quoque – and this distraction is a common diversionary tactic in the debate over Israel’s poor treatment of ethnic minorities living under its control.
Additionally ‘the peculiar worldview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which you must simultaneously recant all atrocities by all sides to be “objective”‘ – as dmbeaster put it – is similarly fallacious, although it apparently has devout adherents here.
In the immediate aftermath of the six day war, Israel offered to return the land it had gained during the war for peace with the Arabs.
This is mythical (or withdrawn as fast as it was made, so not in good faith). But let’s suppose it was true. So what — they would not do it when a peace treaty was signed with Jordan. What I really want to hear is the justification for taking that alleged offer off the table when it came time to sign the peace treaty with Jordan.
What I also want to hear is how Israel’s desire for peace is consistent with settling areas of the West Bank and forcing Arabs to leave those areas, including expropriating their land for those settlements.
Again, this post is about the inflammatory effect of Israel continuing to expand West Bank settlements. As Edward’s noted above, no one is addressing why that is allegedly OK, or how it can possibly be consistent with peace goals.
“In the immediate aftermath of the six day war, Israel offered to return the land it had gained during the war for peace with the Arabs.”
“This is mythical (or withdrawn as fast as it was made, so not in good faith).”
Got any evidence? In Oren’s book on the war it’s reported that archival documents show that Israel tried to turn over the territories to local men of authority who replied that the Arab countries wouldn’t permit an independent Palestine to exist.
It might stick in your craw, but that doesn’t make it mythical – but really what does it matter in the larger scheme of things?
I meant by the last bit, “So Israel tried to do the right thing at the time – that was a long time ago and there’s plenty to complain about since”.
Jes, your continous questioning of my integrity is insulting and probably violates posting rules. I have now repeatedly stated that both sides fail to live up to the conditions set out in the peace agreement and given reasons as to why they might do so. I mentioned that both Sharon and Abbas face strong opposition within their own ranks and have to deal with that fact. You malignantly took my mere mentioning of the Palestinian obligations as “blaming Abbas”, and my mere mentioning of the fact that Sharon is not a dictator as “excusing Sharon”. You read into my statements assumptions I don’t hold and obsessively look for the slightest hint of possible pro-Israeli bias in my position. You won’t find any because it isn’t there. I am agnostic and pragmatic in this whole matter. If you want to think otherwise, that’s fine, but quit misconstruing my statements and accusing me of bias publicly. Thanks.
Don Q, let’s say canditate X is proposing policy A and candidate Y is proposing policy non-A. I vote for candidate Y explicitly because he is proposing non-A. Candidate X gets elected and pushes through policy A?
How am I responsible for that? Original sin?
Novakant: Jes, your continous questioning of my integrity is insulting and probably violates posting rules.
I intended no insult, Nova. I wanted to point out to you that you were, by your own comments, holding Israelis and Palestinians to two different standards: this is a fairly common failing among Americans and (more forgiveably) among Israelis.
My belief is that Ariel Sharon’s action in expanding the settlements is intentionally provocative: he intends to derail the peace process.
Your belief is that Ariel Sharon is pandering to his party. If true, that means that they either (as Edward suggests) just don’t get that by doing this they derail the peace process, or they want to derail the peace process. Either way, actively working against the peace process is not excusable. Yet the impression I got from your comments was that you did find it excusable and understandable – as if pandering to the anti-peace/pro-Greater Israel element in Israeli politics was an inevitable happening.
Don Q, let’s say canditate X is proposing policy A and candidate Y is proposing policy non-A. I vote for candidate Y explicitly because he is proposing non-A. Candidate X gets elected and pushes through policy A?
How am I responsible for that? Original sin?
Your tax dollar is going to fund policy A.
And now after being elected Candidate X pursues policy A which leads the the invasion of a country Z, violation of numerous treaties and the death of a few hundred thousand people, do you think that the inhabitants of Country Z are going to care whether or not you voted for Candidate Y when they start retaliating thru Terrorism?
When the world puts trade sanctions on your country do you think that they are going to seperate citizens who voted for Candidate Y from the one’s who voted for Candidate X?
Lot’s of great comments, but I’m still waiting for someone to explain why, if you know that additional settlement activity could (and if history’s any indication probably will) disrupt the peace proces, why, at this juncture, when the future looks so bright, would anyone support inflaming the Palestinians over 3500 housing units in the area of Jerusalem traditionally inhabitated by Arabs? Why? Can’t these housing units wait?
Lot’s of great comments, but I’m still waiting for someone to explain why, if you know that additional settlement activity could (and if history’s any indication probably will) disrupt the peace proces, why, at this juncture, when the future looks so bright, would anyone support inflaming the Palestinians over 3500 housing units in the area of Jerusalem traditionally inhabitated by Arabs? Why? Can’t these housing units wait?
Because the Israelis have a policy of expension with the goal of creating a greater Israel and the US has a policy of seeing no evil.
I just want to state my 100% support for Don Q.’s implied position of not paying taxes when candidates you dislike win office.
dmbeaster,
Even your view of the events of 1948 does not support your opinion that Israel was letting the desire for land interfere with peace.
The only Israeli desire that interfered with peace in 1948 (and 1967 and 1973) was the desire for survival. The Arabs were not offering peace. To imply otherwise is not just slanted, but simply wrong.
To quote what you yourself wrote:
“I just think we should be real about what happened.”
Sebastian: “The distinction between the PLOs political wing and the terrorist wing remains largely illusory.”
Anarch: “Do we have conclusive evidence of this fact?”
The Karin A may not be conclusive, but it’s pretty strong.
Hi — I don’t really want to get into the whole brouhaha. I agree with Edward that expanding the settlements is needlessly inflammatory, but do not want to get into such thrilling debates as: are you saying that the Palestinians have not done any needlessly inflammatory things? (no, but recently they seem to be doing OK), doesn’t Sharon have to worry about his base? (yes, but that’s true of both sides, and on both sides calls for leadership), etc. Once we get into the “who is worse? Who did X first?” debates, I check out.
But there’s one point that Sebastian made that I’d like to clarify. Sebastian: ” Is it fair to label Israelis in and around Jerusalem settlers? And make no mistake, the PLO believes that Israelis in Jerusalem are settlers too.” — As I understand it, the term ‘settlers’ has a fairly precise meaning in this context: it refers to Israelis (normally Israeli Jews) who create settlements on land occupied in the ’67 war. East Jerusalem is land occupied in the ’67 war, thus the terminology.
But this does not mean that all Israelis living in Jerusalem are settlers, since West Jerusalem, where most Israelis live (or did last time I checked; who knows what’s true now), was not occupied in the ’67 war. — Here I think it helps to have lived there. West Jerusalem, the part of the city that has been Israeli since Israel came into existence, is the commercial center of Jerusalem, plus its outlying residential neighborhoods and pre-’67 suburbs. (They have of course grown since ’67 as well.) East Jerusalem was always Arab. When I lived there, in the early ’80s, it was largely Arab with the odd Jewish settlement here and there. The settlements were controversial, and were clearly enclaves in the midst of an Arab (part of a) city. It would be wrong to think ofthe construction of these settlements as the normal development of suburbs, I think. For one thing, they were pretty political from the outset. For another, their existence was (when I was there) clearly understood to be an attempt to create ‘facts on the ground’ to make it harder for Israel to give back any part of Jerusalem in a final deal. (And I should say that I had various friends who lived in those settlements, so ‘clearly understood’ does not mean ‘clearly understood among leftists’ or something. I spent time in those settlements, and the people I knew who lived there did so for this reason. Though the fact that the government heavily subsidized settlement activity, and thus housing was very cheap there, didn’t hurt.)
That is: as the people who lived there understood it at the time, the Jewish settlements around Jerusalem were created in large part as an attempt to prejudge one of the most contentious elements of a final peace. So I do not think they are just ‘innocuous suburbs’ at all.
What I really want to hear is the justification for taking that alleged offer off the table when it came time to sign the peace treaty with Jordan.
Because Jordan had renounced its claim to the West Bank five years before the peace treaty with Israel was signed, and there was thus nothing to put on the table at that point.
Yomtov:
I agree with you that the Arabs had no desire for peace until recently, and that from 1948 through the 70s, they actively sought to destroy Israel. There seems to be a tendency to excuse all Israeli bad behavior by referencing Arab bad behavior, and vice versa (and suicide bombing of children, schools, etc. is “worse,” although the Israelis at various times have acted similarly). I don’t buy it. The fact that Israel was fighting for its existence in 1948 onward does not excuse ethnic cleansing, or a territorial expansion policy that is justified by a right of conquest theory.
As for my view that Israeli desire for land is an obstruction to peace, it clearly is now. In the past, it served to further inflame Arabs against Israel, although all it did was pour gasoline on an already burning inferno, so it had almost nothing to do with creating or increasing the fire. As for why the Arabs were so against Israel, maybe it has something to do with culture, but also something to do with resentment at what appeared to them to be colonization by Europeans. Israel was forged by violence against the native peoples who did not welcome their presence nor their goal to turn their land into a jewish state.
I agree with other comments that this past is over, and I am not at all sympathetic to the Right of Return. However, becasue of this past history, nothing is more sensitive to the Palestinians that Israeli expansion into any lands, even if it is only a small amount (and a post above notes the particular sensitivity of expansion around Jerusalem). To continue to repeat bad behavior in the 21st century when peace looks possible, which is Edwards point repeated now several times without response, must mean that the Israelis in charge care less about peace than land.
Frankly, this seems rather obvious, and the only response to Edward’s point has been deflection rather than a response on the merits.
BTW, while I’m strongly opposed to any construction east of the Green Line before final boundaries are set, I’ll say one thing in mitigation. The Jerusalem-Ma’ale Adumim corridor has been assigned to Israel in every serious final-status proposal – Beilin-Abu Mazen, the Clinton plan, Taba and even the Geneva Accord. Therefore, the homes are being built on territory that has already been effectively conceded to Israel and will almost certainly be Israeli after a final-status agreement is signed. As I said, I’m opposed to this construction, but the more hysterical reactions (i.e., that this will “torpedo a Palestinian state” or cut off the West Bank from East Jerusalem) are ridiculous.
Re return of the West Bank and myths:
Yes, there is anecdotal evidence of a desire to return the land, but it was never any formal policy. And maybe one reason Jordan gave up any effort to get it back was it was already being settled by Israelis. After all, the settlement policy clearly came first.
Any alleged willingness by Israel to return it and Israel’s plan to settle it are 100% inconsistent, and it is nuts to even pretend that Israel intended to give it all back. This is a myth designed to obfuscate expansionism (nor is the return of some land while keeping other land proof that there was no intention to expand — just proof of pragmatism about how to expand).
Or is the excuse now that Israel settled it because allegedly no one else wanted to take it back? (except for those already occupying it, who apparently do not count since “It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist” — Golda Meir, 1969.)
Again, I am an advocate for a policy based on reality — not dogma like so much of the rhetoric that comes out of both participants in this conflict.
Edelstein:
Thanks for collecting the map links and your mitigation point. It would have greater meaning if it was matched by an express Israeli willingness to cede other areas occupied in the interim that are not within the areas to be received by Israel under these various plans, including recent annexations resulting from the security wall. Otherwise, it all just looks like more appropriation whether within the prior plans or not. What has been particularly offensive was the recent practice of cutting off Palestinian land with the security wall, and then appropriating it as “abandoned lands.”
dmbeaster,
The statement you originally made was that for 60 years (rounded, OK) Israel’s desire for land prevented them from obtaining peace. I disagreed, on the simple basis that peace was not on offer by the Arabs for most of those 60 years. You now appear to concede this point. Perhaps the current situation could be discussed a bit more carefully if the first response were not a blanket indictment of sixty years of policies by a country that spent most of that time legitimately concerned not only for its survival as a political entity, but for the physical survival of its people.
If you are going to accuse Israel of provocative behavior you might also mention the attitudes of the Arabs, which certainly justified Israeli fears. Yet you seem quite content to excuse all this on grounds of culture or something.
Perhaps the Arabs did not welcome the Jews. It is worth noting that Arab anti-Semitism long preceded the establishment of Israel, and that Jews living peacefully in the area decades earlier were the victims of pogroms and other outrages, and that some Arab leaders were openly pro-Nazi during WWII. So I don’t buy the argument that it was all because of colonization by the west. I will also add that the idea that the land was taken by force is not quite accurate. Most was purchased, often at inflated prices. The Arabs who were so offended by Jewish immigration were nonetheless quite happy to sell land to the Jews.
Finally, it seems to me that your view is that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate act, even though you haven’t quite said so. What arrangements exactly do you think should have been made for the many post-war Jewish DP’s?
Bernard: Most was purchased, often at inflated prices. The Arabs who were so offended by Jewish immigration were nonetheless quite happy to sell land to the Jews.
This is actually an effect I recognize, not so much from colonization, as from when (for example) Londoners move to Scotland. I can well believe that the European and American immigrants who came to Palestine with the intent of creating a Jewish state had more purchasing power than the local Arabs, and that this upset the local land economy.
What arrangements exactly do you think should have been made for the many post-war Jewish DP’s?
Do you think it was fair to forcibly create so many post-war Palestinian DPs?
“Do you think it was fair to forcibly create so many post-war Palestinian DPs?”
No, and I wish the Arab countries had allowed a peaceful establishment of Israel so that wouldn’t have happened.
And maybe one reason Jordan gave up any effort to get it back was it was already being settled by Israelis. After all, the settlement policy clearly came first.
Jordan’s renunciation of the WB occurred soon after the outbreak of the intifada and about the same time as the Algiers Declaration, in which the PLO legislative council declared independence within the 1967 boundaries. I’m not privy to the deliberations of the Jordanian government, but I suspect that the decision to renounce was due less to the Israeli settlement policy than (1) the lack of any immediate prospect of getting the WB back, (2) the absence of any real desire to alter Jordan’s demographic balance any further in the Palestinians’ favor, and (3) a wish not to be seen as thwarting the Palestinian national cause (which had much more international recognition in 1988 than 1967).
Or is the excuse now that Israel settled it because allegedly no one else wanted to take it back?
I don’t think anybody’s saying that. In fact, there were several phases of settlement that occurred for different reasons; for instance, East Jerusalem was settled because Israel considered it sovereign territory, and the Jordan Valley settlements of the early 1970s were originally seen as defensive installations (along roughly the same theory as Roman coloni). The expansion of the settlement program after 1978, which is where most of the real problems have come from, followed (1) the Likud victory in the 1977 general election and (2) the PLO’s rejection of Israel’s 1978 autonomy offer at Camp David. In other words, it was partly a product of Revisionist Zionist ideology and partly a measure that seemed like a good defensive idea at the time.
It would have greater meaning if it was matched by an express Israeli willingness to cede other areas occupied in the interim that are not within the areas to be received by Israel under these various plans, including recent annexations resulting from the security wall.
Gaza and the four settlements in the northern West Bank, maybe?
What has been particularly offensive was the recent practice of cutting off Palestinian land with the security wall, and then appropriating it as “abandoned lands.”
Which has been rescinded after both international and domestic outcry.
BTW, I also consider myself a realist when it comes to the I-P conflict. I support a final status resolution along the lines of Taba or Geneva, involving a one-for-one land swap for any territory annexed by Israel and fair compensation to all refugees who are denied the right of return within the 1967 boundaries. I also oppose the settler movement to the extent of wishing none of the settlements had ever been built. However, I don’t think there’s any profit in characterizing the current situation as a product of inherent Israeli land-hungriness when in fact it is a mess to which all sides are still contributing.
However, I don’t think there’s any profit in characterizing the current situation as a product of inherent Israeli land-hungriness when in fact it is a mess to which all sides are still contributing.
By “current situation” do you mean specifically the addtional 3500 housing units in Maale Adumim? I ask, because I really want to know why this can’t wait.
Is there some greater ill that waiting would bring? It can’t just be political pressure, can it? And if it is, what is the objective of that political pressure if not exactly what the Palestinians fear it is?
It seems, from here, so simple to agree to a suspension of any activity that might be read (or intentionally misread) as provocative. Who would lose out, long-term I mean, if that happened?
No, and I wish the Arab countries had allowed a peaceful establishment of Israel so that wouldn’t have happened.
Oh, why start with the 1948 war? Why not begin with the British government in the 1920s both promising the Arab Palestinians that they’d have independence and self-determination, and promising the Jewish Palestinians that they’d have a state of Israel? (Or for that matter, with the horrible split-up of the Ottoman Empire following WWI, and the colonialist grip kept on Palestine by the British for thirty years?)
Had Palestine been given independence in 1918, instead of being kept under the British Mandate, there would have been no question of an independent Palestine voting to expel several hundred thousand citizens because they weren’t Jewish. Had European and American Jews not been so determined on a last-gasp of colonization, the creation of a Western colony and the destruction of an Arab country, the troubles that led up to the 1948 war might not have happened. (We can ignore the idea that the Arabs ought to have welcomed the establishment of a Western Jewish nation in which they would be second-class citizens at best, I hope – the concept that the natives should welcome the colonizers ought to have long gone by the board.) Had the British government worked out a plan for what to do when the British Mandate ended, things might have worked out better. But there was WWII, and there were the Nazis, and the death camps, and the horrible toll which sickened everyone – and, at the time, made even those who saw the injustice of dispossessing the Palestinians, feel for the Jews who wanted a State of Israel. And yes, had the six neighboring Arab nations not invaded the moment Israel declared its existence…
but really, the whole situation in that part of the world, from WWI onward, and indeed from well before WWI, is so complex that blaming it all on the 1948 war is really absurd.
By “current situation” do you mean specifically the addtional 3500 housing units in Maale Adumim? I ask, because I really want to know why this can’t wait.
See my comment above re: budget vote on March 30, potential Likud leadership race on April 14 and probability that the housing plan will be quietly shelved if Sharon survives either.
Thanks Jonathan, sorry I missed that.
If he survives the budget vote or wins the leadership race, it won’t be long before the expansion is found to cost too much or is withdrawn as a gesture to Abbas or the United States.
This then points back to my other question: And if it is political, what is the objective of that political pressure if not exactly what the Palestinians fear it is?
If indeed this is Sharon’s reasoning, this begins to feel like the Bush/FMA problem, where he felt he had to endorse it, even while letting his VP say he was against it, to get himself elected, but unfortunately will greatly piss off his base now if he lets them think he’s not really committed to it.
If this is as common a ploy as you suggest it is, though, won’t those who Sharon is playing to, suspect he’s gonna hope to wiggle his way back out of it and work to make that very difficult?
It’s a ridiculously risky move, if you ask me.
Jes: “Oh, why start with the 1948 war?”
Uhh, because you (pl) were talking about that time-frame and displaced persons from WWII and the Nakhba. If you prefer to play the counterfactual game, go ahead – it always leads to an infinite regression of “But, if”s though.
Edward: “It’s a ridiculously risky move, if you ask me.”
I’ve missed any evidence that this is something considered particularly (especially? ridiculously?) problematic by anyone involved or by the usual commentariat. Maybe if there’s actual work done on the ground we’ll see some of that…
Jesurgislac,
Had European and American Jews not been so determined on a last-gasp of colonization, the creation of a Western colony and the destruction of an Arab country,
If you ever wonder why opposition to Israeli policies is sometimes interpreted as anti-Semitism, reread this sentence. I half expect you to claim the Elders of Zion were behind it all. It ascribes nothing but vile motives to the Zionists. It says nothing about any legitimate reasons to establish a state. It essentially makes Herzl, Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, et al out to be anti-Arab bigots of the worst kind.
You have written virtually nothing that ascribes any blame at all to the Arabs for the problems, except a reluctant, “well, maybe starting the war was unwise, but who can blame them, and it really wasn’t a big deal anyway.”
You even reject the notion that the purchase of land by Jews was legitimate:
I can well believe that the European and American immigrants who came to Palestine with the intent of creating a Jewish state had more purchasing power than the local Arabs, and that this upset the local land economy.
I suppose the Jews forced the Arabs to sell. Is that it?
Maybe time for everybody to step back and reflect (well, except Jonathan Edelstein, who has already done sufficient reflecting).
I’ve missed any evidence that this is something considered particularly (especially? ridiculously?) problematic by anyone involved or by the usual commentariat. Maybe if there’s actual work done on the ground we’ll see some of that…
you lost me rilkefan. The Ahmed Qureia quote I cited above, some involved, makes it clear he considers it problematic.
Or are you saying that because it’s only a plan (and not an action) at the moment, everyone should wait to see if it becomes an action before deciding if it’s problematic or should have been avoided?
Kind of like throwing a baby out the window and then considering whether he’s really a “bouncing” baby boy or not, no? It’s a bit too late to change your mind then, no?
Bernard, have you read Tom Segev’s “One Palestine, Complete”? I suggest if you haven’t, you find a copy and read it. It contains a number of interesting little factual tidbits, among them the following–
Here’s an early Zionist, Ahad Ha’am, writing in 1891–
The Jewish settlers ” treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, bath them shamelessly for no sufficient reason and even take pride in doing so.”
He goes on to say “We are used to thinking of the Arabs as primitive men of the desert, as a donkey-like nation that neither sees nor understands what is going around it….” That’s on page 104, if you want to look.
Then on page 405 we find Segev stating this –“Disappearing the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream…..’I don not believe in the transfer of an individual. I believe in the transfer of entire villages.’, Arthur Ruppn said” With few exceptions, none of the ZIonists disputed the desirability of forced transfer–or its morality….’I do not see anything immoral in it’ Ben Gurion asserted.”
That page and successive pages tell how the early Zionists favored transferring the Arabs out if possible, but usually tried not to talk about it openly too much, for fear of stirring up the Arabs. Clearly when the time came, Ben Gurion was in favor of ethnic cleansing and also lied about it afterwards.
As for the amount of pre-1967 Israeli land that was purchased, it was relatively small, partly because of British policies I think. Some pro-Palestinian historians say it was about 7 percent. Segev says it is a complicated question to answer, because surveying methods changed and there are various other sources of inaccuracy, but he says that less than 10 percent was owned by Jews at the end of the period of the British Mandate–25 percent ownd by Jews if you only count land considered habitable.
As for motives, the Zionists were trying to escape centuries of Christian antisemitism. iI’d be amazed if late 19th century/early 20th century people of European descent wouldn’t think they had more rights than Arabs. And they did think so–if they could acquire the land through purchase, fine, but if force was needed that was okay too. The Arabs in turn reacted with a mixture of legitimate resentment and illegitimate terrorism. Neither side had a monopoly on racism or bad behavior, then or now.
On another subject, I notice Sebastian making the often-made comparison between suicide bombing and settlement expansion–we are supposed to see that building houses on land where people are living under occupation isn’t nearly as bad as killing school kids. I first heard this one back in the 90’s. But when you impose these policies you often have to kill people to enforce them. And torture them too, sometimes. If you carefully pick a timeframe I suppose you can always find one where one side has killed innocent people and the other side hasn’t, but this isn’t a sensible way to make moral distinctions.
“you lost me rilkefan. The Ahmed Qureia quote I cited above, some involved, makes it clear he considers it problematic.”
See earlier for a fuller discussion of the quote in question.
“Or are you saying that because it’s only a plan (and not an action) at the moment, everyone should wait to see if it becomes an action before deciding if it’s problematic or should have been avoided?”
Someone more authoritative than me has presented reasons why this is unlikely to be actualized – see above. Sounds like reason for a Slartibartfasian pause to me. (And an update.)
Sounds like reason for a Slartibartfasian pause to me. (And an update.)
I’m not making an update to this post. Nothing provided thus far convinces me Sharon has made the wiser choice for the peace process (a more prudent choice for his own political future, perhaps, but that’s not been proven to be the same thing). Your projection of what Qureia meant is as scant in evidence as you’re suggesting my fears of derailment are.
I see nothing here but political ambition, where clearly sacrifices need to be made. The idea the Netanyahu or Landau would be worse for the peace process is the only hint of justification behind this I can see, and I had to manufacture that myself from the comments offered.
You’re pissed that I’m taking Israel to task here. I see that. I just don’t see why you’re not pissed at Israel for not making the momentary sacrifice (and nothing here suggesting it’s better the other way is anything but blind faith and speculation) until a less tenuous peace has been reached.
My wife still thinks that the fabled Slartibartfastian Pause is just procrastination in disguise. I promised her I’d give that idea some consideration, when I get time.
“You’re pissed that I’m taking Israel to task here. I see that.”
No, I’m not pissed, I just don’t think the post is contentful or informed. If I was PM of Israel and I had 100% popular support, I’d do things differently, but I’m not and I don’t. And I don’t see this (again, based on what evidence has been presented here) as much of an issue, in much the same way I don’t see Abbas’s cozying up to terrorists as much of an issue at the moment. Lord knows that Sharon has done startlingly many things I think are horrible over the years, but he seems generally to be on a good tack currently and I’ll continue to disagree with people over that tack unless and until he does (god forbid) something horrible or just run-of-the-mill awful again.
See above at March 23, 2005 08:11 PM for a framing of the post which I think would fairly disagree with this proposed policy.
Btw, seems to me that it’s uncivil to refer to Jonathan Edelstein‘s reasoned argument as “blind faith and speculation”.
The idea the Netanyahu or Landau would be worse for the peace process is the only hint of justification behind this I can see, and I had to manufacture that myself from the comments offered.
Actually, I think there’s fairly solid evidence that either of them would be worse for the peace process. Landau is a Greater Israel fanatic who, if he had the reins of power, would scuttle the Gaza withdrawal and dismantle the Palestinian Authority in a minute. Netanyahu isn’t as much of a fanatic, but he has cozied up to the right wing quite a bit and has staked out a position in favor of the settlers and against Palestinian statehood. Maybe he would come around after a while to realizing that withdrawal is inevitable, but valuable time would be lost while he ascends the learning curve.
I’m not the sort of person who normally goes around defending any Likud prime minister. Two years ago, I never dreamed I’d be supporting Sharon on anything. At this point, though, his political demise and replacement by a further-right Likudnik would be a disaster for the peace process. He’s the only one who’s a tough enough bastard to break the power of the settler movement, and that – not Abbas’ attempts to co-opt Hamas, and not the promulgation of provocative construction plans that are unlikely to be realized – is the highest priority in Middle East peacemaking today.
If the settlers win a victory on Gaza, they will essentially become the Hizbullah of Israel, a minority too politically powerful and violently inclined to break. I can’t think of anything at all that would be worse for the peace process than that, so I’m willing to give Sharon a qualified pass on Ma’ale Adumim if he needs to make that promise to survive the next week. The pass doesn’t extent to any of those homes actually being built, but as I said above, I don’t think they will be. Your mileage may vary.
Jonathan: He’s the only one who’s a tough enough bastard to break the power of the settler movement
The problem is that this new expansion in East Jerusalem indicates either that he’s not interested in breaking the power of the settler movement, or else that he’s not able to do so. Either way is a disaster for the peace process.
What arrangements exactly do you think should have been made for the many post-war Jewish DP’s?
How about a green card followed by a US Passport five years later!
DQ, while that might have been a better idea in the long run, I doubt it would have been politically possible. Bigotry in the US was not only alive and well in the 40’s, it was still codified in law – toward any minorities, including Jews (even despite widespread revulsion and shock at the Holocaust).
I doubt Americans would have been very keen on the idea of importing a few hundred thousand financially dispossessed, traumatized, physically frail refugees of any kind, much less Jewish ones. There’s also the small matter of where they would all go, and where the resources would come from to get them housing, healthcare and jobs – this, mind you, just as the country was already dealing with the economic and social strains of demobilization, and the need to rebuild Europe. (If you doubt that a sudden mass influx of refugees can be destabilizing, read up on what happened in 1980 when the Marielitos swarmed over Florida – and that was just a few thousand people, not nearly a million.) It’s possible that, even if the government had the willingness and will to take on all those refugees, the price would have been no Marshall Plan, because we simply couldn’t have afforded it.
It should also be noted that a restored Jewish State wasn’t something that got cooked up in a hurry after the Holocaust. It was something that Zionists had been working toward in an organized fashion at least since the late 1800’s. The land-buying policy was one outgrowth of that.
Yeah, so much better to dump them on the Palestinians & then spend a few billion to help them defend themselves against the people they displaced thru ethnic cleansing.
Hate to do a drive-by, but thanks to all y’all for reminding me why I don’t comment on Israel-Palestine threads 🙂
I found the need to quote Kipling once already in the past 24 hours, and I find it like eating Pringles: you never want just one. (Besides, Kipling’s such a convenient chap. Almost like Shakespeare.)
Assuming that Sharon is only proposing this expansion of the settlements as a sop to the pro-settlement elements in his own party, the reason why this is still bad news for the peace process was succinctly explained by Kipling:
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
–cite
If Sharon’s serious about the peace process, he should not be throwing sops to pro-settlement factions in his own party, or anyone else’s. What this says is – either or both – he cares more about staying in power than he does about the peace process: he doesn’t care about the peace process at all, and rather hopes the Palestinians are provoked into violence so that he can say “You broke it, not me! I never touched you.”
Far be it from me to argue with the distinguished Dr. Rice*:
Rice: Israel Expansion ‘At Odds’ With U.S.
*OK, so you know I won’t hesitate to when I actually do, but this time, she’s right.
but this time, she’s right.
Can we make jokes about stopped clocks now?
Edelstein:
However, I don’t think there’s any profit in characterizing the current situation as a product of inherent Israeli land-hungriness when in fact it is a mess to which all sides are still contributing.
Except I did not do this. “Land-hunger” is one aspect of many bad behaviors by both participants in this conflict. You seem to agree when you note that no settlements would have been the preferred situation. Those settlements were created because of an Israeli policy to expand into conquered lands, which has been a major impediment to peace in recent times. And my other point is that Israeli expansionism is not a new trend, but has been at the core of Israeli policy since its founding. Yomtov mistakenly adds a point I do not make which is that it allegedly was a cause for a lack of peace in earlier years. No, I only said that the policy has been around from the beginning, and expressly said that it had next to nothing to do with causing the war in the early decades, although it did further inflame already inflamed Arabs.
Israeli is an odd country because it really never has had an established border anywhere, and no one knows that better than Israelis. The original 1947 UN borders reflected a compromise that made no one happy, and became mooted almost immediately. The “pre-1967” borders have existed for only 20 years of the country’s almost 60 year existence. They are ascribed a permanence that they do not really have. Israel has ebbed and flowed into other areas over the decades (was there Israeli settler movement agitation to attempt to set up shop in south Lebanon?). Israelis have been wanting to expand their borders both for security reasons and because of the religious driving force of Zionism. I can understand why it is so hard for them to turn off the switch on this bad behavior, but it must cease if there is to be peace.
Yomtov:
My prior quote: Israel was forged by violence against the native peoples who did not welcome their presence nor their goal to turn their land into a jewish state.
Yours: Finally, it seems to me that your view is that the establishment of Israel was an illegitimate act, even though you haven’t quite said so.
You could make similar statements about the founding of the US or Texas — a foreign culture immigrates into an area and seeks to displace the indigineous culture and impose their own version of government. I’ll let you decide whether or not it is legitimate — as I said before, I am willing to let the historical matters remain in the past. I just want to see moves toward peace, which neither side seems that interested in except on their own terms (which obviously prevents peace). The Israeli habit of taking lands is their primary contirbution to scuttling peace, and continuation of this bad behavior guarantees that there will not be peace.
But let’s be real about how Israel was founded: From Morris’ book Righteous Victims re the creation of Palestinian refugees:
Zionist Transfer Policy
Another crucial precondition was the penchant among Yishuv leaders to regard transfer as a legitimate solution to the “Arab problem.” Recently declassified Zionist documents demonstrated the virtual consensus emerged among the Zionist leadership, in the wake of the publication in July 1937 of the Peel Commission recommendations, in favor of the transfer of at least several hundred thousand Palestinian Arabs–if not all of them– out of the areas of the Jewish state-to-be. The tone was set by Ben-Gurion himself in June 1938:
“I support compulsory [Palestinian Arab population] transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral.”
Ben-Gurion’s views did not change–though he was aware of the need, for a tactical reasons, to be discreet. In 1944, at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive discussing how the Zionist movement should deal with the British Labor Party decision to recommend the transfer of Palestinian Arabs, he said:
“When I heard these things. . . I had to ponder the matter long and hard ….[but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] . . . Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer . . . because speaking about the matter might harm [us] . . . in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] . . . it would alert and antagonize the Arabs . . .”
Ben-Gurion added,
“The transfer of Arabs is easier than the transfer of any other [people]. There are Arabs states around . . . And it is clear that if the [Palestinian] Arabs are transferred this would improve their situation and not the opposite.”
None of the members of the Executive opposed or questioned these views; most spoke in favor. Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department, declared:
“Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance.”
And he added:
“[W]hen the Jewish state is established–it is very possible that the result will be transfer of Arabs.”
Note that this was Zionist (soon to be Israeli) policy before the 1948 war.
OK, this seriously cracked my sh** up:
The Jihadis of Penzance
I particularly like it because, as far as I can tell, it’s an equal opportunity mocker. With G&S filks!