THE OFFICIAL ISRAEL/PALESTINE THREAD

i’m sure this is not the first (or only) thread to deal with this topic, but i’m interested in 1) hearing the different points of view from the fine folks that visit this site and 2) learning more about the topic myself, and turning this thread into a place where others can come and learn a thing or two.

please, “lets keep it clean”. i’d like to see this thread grow into a sort of database of quality information!

so… i’ll start with my initial thoughts. and i should mention that i have not exactly done a TON of reading or researching of this topic. i consider myself a “beginner” at best. i’ve read what Chomsky has to say as well as what Edward Said has to say. i also know (roughly) the official position of the US on this matter (through countless news articles/television programs).

it seems to me that the US is enabling the conflict more than attempting to resolve the conflict (as is consistently suggested in its public statements regarding the situation). the US provides support to Israel through military funding, arms, training etc etc. what i don’t understand is why the US would want to do this. what interest does the US have in Israel? what interest do they have (if any) in squelching Palestine’s attempts at gaining ground? what’s the big picture here?

-dark magus

hey you may be interested about this. there is a series of lectures called the “reith lectures” on the bbc website, bbc.co.uk/radio4/
find the lectures in 2004 and have a listen. it’s not all to do with the isral-palestin conflict but it does talk about it especially in the last (or the one before the last can’t remember exactly) lecture.

I think the the usa does gain something strategically if israle benefits or say win out. the middle east is occupied by arab countries which are islamic. the usa can’t really be as friendly to them as to say israle. strategically I think that usa can gain some control over the middle east if is has israle there as a friend.
just a thought, I’m probably as much a beginner as you are on this.

I’m appaled by what the isralis are doing, there’s no way their actions can be justified, the international comunity is really showing its weakness on this conflict.

Hi,

This is a massive topic so I’ll just stick to the questions that you’ve asked DarkMagus. I’m sure the thread will find a life of its own that way! As far as I know, both Chomsky and Said are anti-Israel authors. I would recommend reading some pro-Israel authors to balance out your views!

I’m not sure what your source is for this but the USA has supported the creation of a Palestinian state since the 1990s.

The United States enthusiastically backed the 1990s peace process that created the Palestinian Authority, and in December 2000, President Clinton became the first commander-in-chief to give a detailed proposal for a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since then, the Bush administration has repeatedly backed Palestinian statehood. In November 2001, President Bush told the U.N. General Assembly that he was “working toward the day when two states—Israel and Palestine—live peacefully together within secure and recognized borders.” The Bush administration helped enshrine similar language in a March 2002 U.N. Security Council resolution, and in June 2002, the Bush administration proposed creating a “provisional” Palestinian state within three years.

This is a big question and many people have written about it on both sides of the fence. The conspiracy theorists and the anti-Israel/anti-Semites would like us to believe that the US supports Israel because it is run by the Jewish Lobby. What the don’t acknowledge, either because they are ignorant or just racist, is that 70% of the population supports US foreign policy in the Middle East. A quick look at the demographics of the United States will tell you that it is not 70% jewish, not by a long shot.

More realistically it is a case of share values. The USA, being a landmark in Western free democracies, tend to favour other free and democratic states over tyrannic and despotic dictatorships. I’ll flesh this out with some quotes from articles.

[i]Academic quibbles among the intelligencia about moral equivalency and “root causes” frankly cause the average American`s eyes to glaze over. Sure, the average American thinks, Israel may have misbehaved. Sure, there should be a separate Palestinian state. But once people started blowing up pizza parlors, a far more important — and far more clear — problem walked onto the scene. Until the absolutely clear evil of terrorism, suicide bombing, and attempted policide is eliminated, other, lesser problems are put on hold.

The answer is found in values — not in brainwashing or because of innate affinity for a particular race or creed. Israel is a democracy. Its opponents are not. Much misinformation abounds on this issue. Libya, Syria, and Iraq are dictatorships, far more brutal than even those in Egypt or Pakistan. But even “parliaments” in Iran, Morocco, Jordan, and on the West Bank are not truly and freely democratic. In all of them, candidates are either screened, preselected, or under coercion. Daily television and newspapers are subject to restrictions and censorship; “elected” leaders are not open to public audit and censure. There is a reason, after all, why in the last decade Americans have dealt with Mr. Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon — and no one other than Mr. Arafat, the Husseins in Jordan, the Assads in Syria, Mr. Mubarak, and who knows what in Lebanon, Algeria, and Afghanistan. Death, not voters, brings changes of rule in the Arab world.

Israeli newspapers and television reflect a diversity of views, from rabid Zionism to almost suicidal pacifism. There are Arab-Israeli legislators — and plenty of Jewish intellectuals who openly write and broadcast in opposition to the particular government of the day. Is that liberality ever really true in Palestine? Could a Palestinian, Egyptian, or Syrian novelist write something favorable about Golda Meir, hostile to Mr. Assad or Mubarak, or craft a systematic satire about Islam? Past experience suggests such iconoclasts and would-be critics might suffer stones and fatwas rather than mere ripostes in the letters to the editor of the local newspapers. Palestinian spokesmen are quite vocal and unbridled on American television, but most of us — who ourselves instinctively welcome self-criticism and reflection — sense that such garrulousness and freewheeling invective are is reserved only for us, rarely for Mr. Arafat’s authority.

Americans also see ingenuity from Israel, both technological and cultural — achievement that is not reflective of genes, but rather of the culture of freedom. There are thousands of brilliant and highly educated Palestinians. But in the conditions of the Middle East, they have little opportunity for free expression or to open a business without government bribe or tribal payoff. The result is that even American farmers in strange places like central California are always amazed by drip-irrigation products, sophisticated water pumps, and ingenious agricultural appurtenances that are created and produced in Israel. So far we have seen few trademarked in Algeria, Afghanistan, or Qatar.

There is also an affinity between the Israeli and Western militaries that transcends mere official exchanges and arms sales. We do not see goose-stepping soldiers in Haifa as we do in Baghdad. Nor are there in Tel-Aviv hooded troops with plastic bombs strapped to their sides on parade. Nor do Israeli presidents wear plastic sunglasses, carry pistols to the U.N., or have chests full of cheap and tawdry metals. Young rank-and-file Israeli men and women enjoy a familiarity among one another, and their officers are more akin to our own army than to the Republican Guard, Hamas, or Islamic Jihad.

American support for Israel emanates from the deepest of America’s core values – support for societies that reflect American values and opposition to those that threaten such societies. Of course, there are Jews and Christians and atheists and Democrats and Republicans who lobby Congress on Israel’s behalf, and they have clout. But in the final analysis, it is a libel of America, its president and its Congress to assert that they have all sold their souls for a pot of gold, when in fact their pro-Israel policies and votes reflect America at its best. [/i]

This reminds me of a well-known joke:

“A story is told of a Jewish man who was riding on the subway reading an anti-Israel newspaper. A friend of his, who happened to be riding in the same subway car, noticed this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approached the newspaper reader: ‘Moshe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an anti-Israel newspaper?’ Moshe replied: ‘I used to read the Jewish newspapers, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to this newspaper. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!’”

B’Shalom

  • ben

the killing zone, a documentary on life in the gaza strip, is an absolutely incredible film that i would recommend everyone seeing. while the creation of the two state can be supported, i do believe that acts done by both sides are absolutely horrendous, and feed only into the cycle of violence. the north american press, however, seems to be caught up in the acts of the palestininas and generally ignors the isreali acts of terror. the documentary does a good job of balancing it. further, i would question how truly ‘democratic’ a country is that carries out said occupation.

americans perceive that the jewish population is almost 10 times that which it is in reality. further, due to conventional (and unfortunate) stereotypes, it is also believed they are more powerful than they might actually be.

isreali interest groups undoubtly have more previlance in america than palesitinan – esp under the patriot act. further, interst groups typically do better when the cause they represent seems to be ‘loosing’ i.e. in need of help. this is part of the explaination for the prevailiance and main success of such interest groups in america. but, given the open and weak political structure of america, i don’t think that this should be taken as more than what it is; i.e. there are interest groups out there.

“To ease the process of expelling Palestinians in 1948 so that the Jewish state might obtain a “demographic” advantage, many massacres took place, in Tantura, Deir Yassin, Beit Daras and many more. Innocent Palestinians were slaughtered in the streets and in their homes. 418 villages were destroyed, and over 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their land, some at gunpoint while others fled for their lives as Zionist gangs bombarded every Arab population center.”
Ramzy Baroud is the editor-in-chief of PalestineChronicle.com
(counterpunch.org/baroud02052003.html)

"Experience teaches, however, that the two-state option will only be viable if Israel implements a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders and dismantles all Jewish settlements, which now contain almost 200,000 people, not including East Jerusalem. While this may currently appear politically impossible, but we should remember that when France finally ceded control of Algiers, it evacuated a much larger number of French citizens.

The second option is the one proffered by the extreme right: the expulsion of all the Palestinians from their lands, forcefully transferring them to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Egypt. The idea of expulsion as a political solution echoes a dark past that some Jews can still remember. Recently, however, it has gained broader support among the powers that be. Polls indicate that The National Union, a right wing party advocating expulsion, is slated to receive eight percent of the vote in the upcoming elections, and its ideas are winning support from beyond its ranks.

The third option is for Israel to annex the West Bank and Gaza Strip, bestowing full citizenship on the Palestinian population, and thus turning itself into a bi-national state, rather than a Jewish one. This solution, which had been perceived by Palestinians as a betrayal of the struggle for self-determination, has lately gained legitimacy within corners of the Palestinian establishment. While the bi-national option is, in a sense, the most democratic of the three, within Israel it is still considered an abomination not only by the right but also by Labor and Meretz."
Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University
(counterpunch.org/gordon1206.html)

"Outside the Middle East, however, there is growing impatience with this wretched war. Europeans are becoming weary of this cynical, ruthless conflict, tired of being called anti-Semites when they object to Israel’s occupation and equally sick of Arafat’s corruption and nepotism and his inability to prevent Palestinian suiciders from killing children. No matter how many rallies in their favour–or how much inane support from the likes of Iain Duncan Smith–Israelis themselves are well aware how isolated they have become.

And despite the roar of the old pro-Israeli pundits on the US east coast and Israel’s lobbying power over Congress, Americans are infuriated by the gutless, supine Middle East policies of their own government. A war that is affecting oil prices and the world economy, that is turning Muslims into enemies of Europe and Westerners into enemies of Islam, that involves occupation and colonial rule, cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely."
Robert Fisk of The Independent
(counterpunch.org/fisk0508.html)

No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism - guardian.co.uk/israel/commen … 25,00.html

There has been tooo much written on this subject - and it wasn’t all written by Anti-Israel Authors - to try and do without quotes.

Shalom - please!
Bob

[size=150]DOWN WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL[/size]

magisterludi,

That sort of comment isn’t appropriate or befitting to this community. If you have an opinion please back it up with a reasom or some evidence. Otherwise it is just a prejudice which has no place here. Further outbursts will force me to delete your posts.

thanks

  • ben

ben (and everyone who has participated meaningfully in this discussion):

thanks for your thoughtful comments and insights. i am starting to see exactly what the situation is all about. hearing about it from just the “chomsky-angle” has given me a lopsided perspective, but now i will be rounding out my perspective with some of those other articles and authors that were mentioned. i do have a question (for ben): if Chomsky and Said are “anti-israel”, then who is “pro-israel”? not that i would know any or all of the names but distinguishing the different “sides” will help me sort all of this out.

and now, my only issue, which is significant to the question of the extent to which the US is involved in the interaction between Israel and Palestine:

this is simply not true. The US has a long (and well-documented) history of providing support to tyrannical and despotic dictatorships. A few notable examples include: Hitler (who received funding from major US corporations, including GE, prior to the full outbreak of WWII); Saddam Hussein, whom, as we all should know, received support (in the form of funding as well as arms, i.e. those now infamous “WMD”) in his much-talked-about gassing and extermination of the Kurds.

so i don’t think that is a very good answer to the question of why the US supports Israel. I think that explanation for why the US is involved with (and supports) Israel is a rather superficial one, which doesn’t really hold up when looked at critically.

those are only two examples, and admittedly, they don’t do justice to the overwhelming evidence out there that is in support of my position. (i’m at work and i don’t have TOO much time). i’ll find some references and/or quotes to bolster my claim! :sunglasses:

your friend in the LOGOS,

DARKMAGUS! :sunglasses: :sunglasses:

and now, some more support for my claim (taken from the case of Guatemala in the 1950’s) regarding the ridiculousness of the idea that the USA is a “landmark in Western free democracies”:

Chomsky, in his book Necessary Illusions (1989), provides extensive reasoning backed by rigorous historical references (this particular passage taken from chapter three, section 7) to describe “why it is necessary [for the US] to block dangerous ideas and “anti-US subversion,” indeed anything that might appeal to the “popular classes” who are to be excluded from the political system.” He also provides reasoning for “State Department concerns that the government of Guatemala in the early 1950’s was too democratic, treating the Communist Party ‘as an authentic domestic political party and not as part of the world-wide Soviet Communist conspiracy.’ It also explains why, in the early postwar [WWII] period, the United States undertook a worldwide campaign to undermine the anti-fascist resitance, suppressing unions and other popular organizations and blocking democratic politics in Japan, Europe, and much of the Third World until proper outcomes were assured…”

some of that is excerpted from an article written by Chomsky that appeared in Z Magazine (Jan. 1989). (http://www.zmag.org) the rest is taken from Necessary Illusions (1988). You can find the entire book here: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/

the examples are a bit “old” but the point is clear: the US conception of democracy is not the traditional, “textbook” definition. a careful look at history will reveal some very surprising things! the concept of democracy in (mainstream) contemporary american political discourse is a perfect example of Orwellian “Newspeak”. i encourage everyone not to fall victim to the illusions propagated by the US government and US corporate newsmedia (and their faithful apologists, US intellectuals who hold positions at US universities). this is all obviously a bit off topic, but i felt as though that needed to be said.

so i’m still looking for the reason(s) why Israel would receive major support from the US. :sunglasses:

Most Israelis Don’t Believe It (or Support It)
The Only Democracy in the Middle East?
By NEVE GORDON
JERUSALEM.

Anyone who follows the news has no doubt come across the claim that “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.” Usually, this claim is followed by its logical inference: “As an island of freedom located in a region controlled by military dictators, feudal kings and religious leaders, Israel should receive unreserved support from western liberal states interested in strengthening democratic values around the globe.”

Over the years, some of the fallacies informing this line of argument have been exposed. Whereas many commentators have emphasized that foreign policy is determined by selfish interests rather than by moral dictates, few analysts have challenged the prevailing view that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

In order to examine this issue, one must first determine Israel’s international borders. Insofar as Israel’s borders extend from the Jordan Valley to the Mediterranean Sea – the de-facto situation for over 36 years – then the state of Israel currently consists of a population of over 9 million people, 3.5 million of whom cannot vote.

De-facto, then, Israel is not a democracy. One-third of the demos does not enjoy a series of basic rights which make up the pillars of liberal democracies. The state of Israel has existed for 55 years and has controlled the Palestinian population in the occupied territories without giving them political rights for two-thirds of this period. Accordingly, the notion that the occupation is provisional or temporary should, by now, be considered an illusion concealing the reality on the ground.

If, however, one chooses to explore the issue exclusively from a de-jure perspective, that is, from inside the internationally recognized pre-1967 territories, it is still unclear to what extent Israel is a democracy.

There is the question of 400,000 Jewish Settlers – seven percent of the citizenry – all of whom enjoy full citizenship rights but do not live in Israel proper. This leads to a series of contradictions, not least the fact that Israel is the only country in the world where government ministers and parliament members live permanently outside its borders.

Even if one were to disregard this reality as well and were only to take into account the six million people living inside Israel proper, one would find an extremely tenuous democracy. The contradictions that have characterized Israel’s policies in the occupied territories are now catching up to the state, and their detrimental effects have become apparent for all to see.

Consider a report just published by the Israeli Democracy Institute (IDI), which like most other think tanks (in Israel and abroad), conceives of Israel in the de-jure sense, ignoring the de-facto situation. IDI examined several aspects of Israel’s democracy, and its findings suggest that “over the last few years there has been a significant decline in the Jewish population’s support of democratic norms on all levels: general support of the democratic system, support of specific democratic values, and support for equal rights for the Arab minority.”

IDI found that only 77 percent of the Jewish population supports the statement that “democracy is the best form of government,” the lowest percentage (alongside Poland) among the 32 countries for which there is available data. Over half the population (56%) is of the opinion that “strong leaders can be more useful to the state than all the deliberations and laws.” Fifty percent concur that if there is a conflict between security interests and the preservation of the rule of law, the former should take precedence. And only 57 percent agree with the statement that violence should never be used to attain political objectives.

More than half of the Jews in Israel (53%) state that they are against full equality for the Arabs; 77 percent say there should be a Jewish majority on crucial political decisions; less than a third (31%) support having Arab political parties in the government; and the majority (57%) think that the Arabs should be encouraged to emigrate. Not only is the majority of the Jewish population against the provision of equal rights for Arab citizens, half of the Jews are even unwilling to face up to the fact that Palestinian citizens of Israel are discriminated against.

Public trust in institutions has also declined in recent years due to widespread corruption and a lack of social cohesion. Yet, tellingly, the Israeli military – and not the legislature, courts or government ministries – is the most trusted institution.

Even if one were to stubbornly hold on to the illusion that Israel exists only within the pre-1967 borders, one would still have to acquiesce that while democracy may exist, it now stands on very shaky grounds. The great political theorist Montesquieu taught us as much. In addition to his well known claim that freedom can be secured only through the separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers, he asserted that if a regime is to maintain its form, the norms and values held by a people must correspond with the regime’s basic principles.

The IDI report clearly reveals that even within Israel proper the majority of the population no longer believes in the basic principles of democracy – equality and freedom – thus suggesting that democracy is in demise. If, however, one faces up to the fact that Israel’s borders reach the Jordan Valley, then democracy simply does not exist.

Neve Gordon teaches politics at Ben-Gurion University Israel,
counterpunch.org/gordon02032004.html

December 23, 2003

Sharon’s Speech
The Decoded Version

By URI AVNERY

He read out the written text of his speech, word for word, without raising his eyes from the page.

It was vital for him to stick to the exact wording, since it was an encoded text. It is impossible to decipher it without breaking the code. And it is impossible to break the code without knowing Ariel Sharon very well indeed.

So it is no surprise that the flood of interpretations in Israel and abroad was ridiculous. The commentators just did not understand what they had heard. That’s why they wrote things like “He did not say anything new”, “He has no plan”, “He is marking time”, “He is old and tired”. And the usual Washington reaction: “A positive step, but”

Nonsense. In his speech, Sharon outlined a whole, detailed–and extremely dangerous–plan. Those who did not understand–Israelis, Palestinians and foreign diplomats–will be unable to react effectively.

Here is the deciphered text of Sharon’s “Herzliyah speech”:

The name of the game is Hitnatkut (“cutting ourselves off”). Meaning: most of the West Bank area will become de facto a part of Israeli, and the rest we shall leave to the Palestinians, who will be enclosed in isolated enclaves. From these enclaves, the settlements will be removed.

Stage One: In order to do this, we need time–about half a year. We are talking about a large-scale and complicated military operation. The army will have to occupy and fortify new lines, while “relocating” dozens of isolated settlements. This will require detailed planning, which has not yet even started. The necessary forces and instruments will have to be prepared. Half a year is the minimum.

During this period we shall not be idle. On the contrary, we shall finish the “separation fence”, and it will play a major part in the new deployment. We shall develop the “settlement blocs”, to which we shall transfer the settlers who will be relocated.

The execution of the plan in half a year is perfectly timed. At exactly that time the American election campaign will reach its climax. No American politician will dare to utter a word against Israel. The Democrats need the Jewish votes and money. The Republicans also need the votes and the money of the 60 million Christian fundamentalists, who support the most extreme elements in Israel.

While we quietly prepare the big operation, we shall continue to flatter President Bush and praise his idiotic Road Map, without, of course, fulfilling any of our obligations under the Map. But we shall blame the Palestinians for violating it.

At the same time we shall pretend to seek negotiations with the Palestinians. We shall try to meet with Abu-Ala as many times as possible and play the game to the end. When we are ready to go, we shall terminate the contacts, declare the Road Map dead and state sorrowfully that all our efforts to start peace negotiations have failed because of Arafat.

Stage two: By then, the “separation wall” will be ready. The Palestinian territories (Areas A and B under Oslo) will be surrounded on all sides. In practice there will be about a dozen isolated pockets. In order to fulfil our promise about Palestinian “contiguity” we shall connect the enclaves by special roads, bridges and tunnels, which we shall be able to cut at a moment’s notice.

The army will withdraw gradually to the separation barrier and redeploy in the territories that will be annexed to Israel, including, inter alia, the settlement blocs of Karney Shomron, Elkana, Ariel and Kedumim; the Modi’in Road and the territory south of it up to the Green Line, all the Greater Jerusalem area already annexed in 1967; the new neighborhoods around Jerusalem up to Maaleh Adumim and perhaps further; the Jewish settlement in Hebron and Kiryat Arba and the settlements in the Hebron area; all the Dead Sea shore; all the Jordan valley, including about 15 km of the banks. Altogether, more than half the West Bank.

These areas will not be annexed officially, but we shall annex them as rapidly as possible in practice. We shall fill them with settlements (also using the settlers from the “relocated” settlements), industrial parks, roads, public institutions and army installations, so that they will become indistinguishable from parts of Israel proper.

At the same time, we shall evacuate the settlements beyond the barrier, including those in the Gaza Strip (with or without the Katif bloc.)

In line with the American proposal, we shall call the Palestinian enclaves “a Palestinian State with Temporary Borders”. That will give the Palestinians the illusion that they will be able to negotiate the “permanent” borders. But, of course, the “separation fence” will be the final border.

The terror will not stop completely, but the Palestinian enclaves will be at our mercy and we shall be able to cut each of them off at any time, prevent movement from one to another and make life in them intolerable. It will not be worthwhile for them to conduct violent acts.

Officially, the Palestinians will have free access to the border crossings to Egypt and Jordan, but in practice we shall maintain an effective military presence, enabling us to stop movement there at any time.

At first the world will scream, but faced with a fait accompli they will quieten down. Even if Bush remains in the White House, he will be paralysed until after the elections at the end of 2004. If a Democrat is elected president, he will need some months to settle down. By then everything will be finished, and we shall be able to generously agree to some minor adjustments.

This is the Plan. Can it be realized?

It is quite possible that Sharon will convince Israeli public opinion. The great majority of the public is united around two points: (a) the longing for peace and security, and (b) the distrust of Arabs and the unwillingness to deal with them. (Some weeks ago, a satirical supplement published a slogan: “YES to peace, NO to Palestinians”.)

Sharon’s plan promises both. It promises peace and security, and it is entirely “unilateral”. No negotiations with Palestinians are required, it does not depend on the will of the Arabs, who can be ignored entirely.

In this respect, Sharon’s plan has a great advantage over the Geneva Initiative, which is entirely based on the assumption that “there is a partner” and that we must negotiate with the Palestinians and make peace with them. Long years of brainwashing, led by Ehud Barak and most of the other leaders of the “Zionist Left”, have convinced the Israeli public that there is no partner, that the Arabs are cheating, that Arafat has broken every single agreement he has signed, etc. The Sharon plan conforms to all these myths, while the Geneva Initiative clashes with them.

But beneath the road to the implementation of the Sharon Plan there lie two big landmines: the settlers and the Palestinians.

The inhabitants of the settlements that are supposed to be “relocated” include some of the most extreme elements of the settlement movement. There is no chance that these will go away peacefully. They will have to be removed by force.

That will require a huge military effort. While many moderate settlers will remove themselves voluntarily if given fat compensation, many others will resist. According to an informed estimate, some 5000 soldiers and policemen will be needed to remove just one small “outpost”: Migron, near Ramallah, which Sharon was supposed to have removed long ago according to the Road Map. When dozens of bigger and more established settlements have to be removed, it will need a giant, quasi war-like operation, requiring a general call up of reserves, with all the political implications.

The army cannot just leave these territories with the settlements remaining behind. As long as the settlements are there, the army will be there. In other words, the implementation of the plan will not be quick and tidy, like the last night in south Lebanon, but a process of many months, perhaps years.

While the deployment in the areas that will be de facto annexed to Israel will be quick and effective, the transfer of the territories that will be turned over to the Palestinians will be very slow.

It is a complete illusion to believe that all this time the Palestinians will quietly look on. They will see the execution of a plan that they believe, quite rightly, to be a device for the destruction of the national aims of the Palestinian people. Clearly there will be no place in the Palestinian enclaves for returning refugees (not to mention any return of refugees to Israel itself). To call this structure a “Palestinian State” is a joke in bad taste.

If Sharon succeeds in executing his plan, a new chapter in the 100-year old Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be opened. The Palestinians will be crowded into territories that will constitute about 10% of the original territory of Palestine before 1948. They will have no chance of enlarging this territory. On the contrary: they will be afraid of Sharon and his successors trying to remove them from what is left, completing the ethnic cleansing of Eretz Israel.

Therefore, the Palestinians will fight against this plan, and their struggle will intensify the more it progresses. All possible means will be employed: firing missiles and mortar shells over the separation barrier, sending suicide bombers into Israel, and so on. Probably, the violent fight will spill over into many other countries around the world, both on the ground and in the air. There will be no peace, no security.

In the end, the basic factors will be decisive: the endurance of the two peoples, their readiness to continue the bloody fight, with all its economic and social implications, as well as the willingness of the world to look on passively.

The idea of “unilateral peace” is strikingly original. “Peace without the other side” is a contradiction in terms. Learned people will call it an oxymoron, a Greek term meaning, literally, a sharp folly.

Eventually, the fate of this plan will be the same as the fate of all the other grandiose plans put forward by Sharon it in his long career. One need only think of the Lebanon war and its price.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
counterpunch.org/avnery12232003.html

Hum, I corresponded with Ramzy Baroud, and he resorted to ad hominem attacks when provided this evidence:
"
Soldiers Win Legal Victory Over
/ 13 Shevat 5798

An Israeli historian who made big news in January 2000 by claiming that Israeli troops massacred 200 Arabs in one village in May 1948 - has apologized. Teddy Katz, who wrote up his account of the events in the village of Tantura for his master’s degree, was forced to apologize for making the false accusations following a trial in the Tel Aviv District Court this week.

Soldiers of the Alexandroni Brigade said they were “very hurt” over the “lies” promulgated by Katz, which included telling Reuters, “at least 200 people from the village of Tantura were killed by Israeli troops,” and, “From the numbers, this is definitely one of the biggest massacres.” However, Bentz Pridan, the commander of the Israeli soldiers who fought the battle in Tantura, said that no such thing ever happened.

“I’ll give you an example of how he lied,” Pridan told Arutz-7’s Yosef Zalmanson today. "He said that he taped dozens of cassettes worth of Arabs who allegedly told what happened after the battle. Of these, he sent us 14, which we translated. In one of them, we hear Katz ask, ‘Tell us what you know about the massacre that happened here,’ and then the Arab answers, “Hey, I didn’t see anything of the sort.’ Katz then repeated the same question, and the Arab gives the same answer - four times! This is the kind of ‘testimony’ Katz relied on for his version of history.” Katz had originally apologized for his actions, but then withdrew his apology; the court has now compelled him to re-instate it.

Pridan told Zalmanson what did happen that day: “This was a village, very close to the Mediterranean Sea and to train tracks [between Caesarea and Haifa], that was used for delivering supplies. This was the reason why it was decided to capture it… The elders of the village were willing to negotiate, as proposed by the nearby Jewish town of Zikhron Yaakov, and in such a case Tantura would have become just like the present-day [Arab] town of Faradis [right nearby]. But the younger people there refused to negotiate, and continued fighting. Their snipers shot at us from rooftops and from within buildings, and we had a difficult house-to-house fight. Many were killed in the battle - I would say about 70 Arabs and 14 of our soldiers. Their wounded were cared for in Jewish hospitals…” He emphasized that his battalion, #33 of the Alexandroni Brigade [Arik Sharon fought in Battalion #32], placed great importance in the Israeli military custom of “purity of weapons,” i.e., military ethics.

Pridan said that he and his fellow soldiers are attempting to have the MA degree Katz received for his work revoked - “but this is hard, because Ilan Pappe is his mentor and he is fighting for him.” Dr. Ilan Pappe is a senior lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University and a senior director at the left-wing Givat Haviva Research Institute for Peace. He is a self-proclaimed “new historian” and “post-Zionist” who told the Associated Press, “Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab” and who believes there is no need for a Jewish state: “Jews are nothing more than a religion. To have a ‘Jewish state’ is like having ‘a Catholic state’ in France.” Pridan, however, continues to fight this trend. He and his fellow former soldiers have formed the Alexandroni Association, which goes from school to school and talks to students about the “Legacy of 1948.”

Is not blockading Israel, preventing Israeli shipping, etc. through Aqaba, not an act of war? Nasser’s move was an attempt to strangle the Israeli economy and prevent trade.

Also, should all the conquered lands be returned to the original owners? What about the Arabs conquering much of the Middle-East and putting it under the Islamic banner? Should the Canadians, USA, Mexicans, South Americans return their land to the Native Americans?

And now we have Israelis expelling Israelis from Gaza.

This probably will not happen and many Israeli Arabs call for the destruction of the Israeli state.

At this moment much of France and Paris is suffering from the rioters. I knew this would occur. Currently, Europeans are beginning to call for immigrants to sign documents stating that they understand the laws of the various lands. Also, many European countries do not provide citizenship and voting rights to immigrants.

We have to find an alternative fuel source, this will end the leverage the totalitarian Middle-Easter dictators have. The US provides aid to many of these countries that allow some of the most vicious antiIsraeli, USA propaganda I have ever read.

Peruse Debka File, and MEMRI for insight.

What about the recent Iranian president’s call to destroy Israel.

Peace be with you too Bob.

So many do not know both sides of the issue. I read Middle-Eastern, European, Israeli and US news for balance. And no, I am not angry with your position. You have the courage of your convictions and have the right to your opinion. Hum, I wonder how I missed this. I also have some great ILP dialogue regarding this. I you wish I can PM it to you, as at the moment I cannot find the link. I did save it in Word though.

Both sides have committed atrocities. Even before the state of Israel was created, the Arabs attacked and massacred several Jews. I can provide evidence if you wish. Also, the Arabs declared war on Israel, and most still do not recognize Israel. Until Hamas, Hizbolla, Al Qaida change their tune, or are erradicated, there will be peace. Remember, every Israeli and US citizen is deemed a legitimate target by these people.

Yes, many Arabs have been used as target practice for the IDF, Arab women have been stripped and marched through Jerusalem, but remember, the Arabs play with Jewish body parts and honor terrorists by naming building, streets and parks in their honor. Try perusing Palestinian Watch for some of the rhetoric coming from the Palestinians. Remember, much of what we read in English is very toned down or just eliminated.