Israel and the Arabs

This was also shown last night on many PBS stations (as Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs) meaning that American-based readers can comment on the content of the programme, rather than… well, the usual.

if there were an agreed-on way of discovering the facts about what real persons are not planning to do, then most wars would never start, and this one would have been over decades ago

Haven’t seen the documentary. May I suggest this piece: Camp David Redux

…when near the end of the summit Arafat responded to Clinton’s anger, according to Swisher, by trying to put the situation in perspective. “You say the Israelis moved forward,” Arafat said to Clinton, “but they are the occupiers. They are not being generous — they are not giving from their pockets but from our land. I am only asking that UN Resolution 242 be implemented. I am speaking only about 22 percent of Palestine, Mr. President.”

This seems to capture the essence of it.

What’s all this crap about ‘tough’, ‘competent’, ‘impressive’, ‘serious about peace’? Arafat, his party and a large majority of Palestinian population agreed to accept 22% of Palestine for their state and end the conflict – that’s not too much, is it? That’s what I call being ‘serious about peace’. The rest is pure demagoguery and disgrace – and that includes Barak and Albright and Clinton and all the rest of them. Barak feared electoral defeat – poor baby.

An Israeli leader can only become an Israeli leader due to massive military, economic and political US support; without it Israel would’ve been a totally different country – demographically, economically and politically. Therefore it would’ve had totally different leaders. Not to mention that their unique immigration policies guarantee massively disproportionate inflow of Jewish ethnic and religious ultra-nationalists.

So, this ‘Israel’s a democracy’ mantra – what is it worth? Not much, I’m afraid, if anything.

Fair enough, Chris. As long as it’s not a mantra it has to be taken into consideration, of course.

However, I highly doubt that Barak’s ‘offer’ was oh-so-precisely-poll-tested as to be the best acceptable; far from it. Consider this: three years later much more ‘generous’ Beilin’s Geneva Accord got something like 46% approval and that’s despite that Israeli public opinion shifted far to the right since 2000 and despite massive smear campaign by Sharon’s government.

No, it wasn’t anything like a delicate balancing act on Barak’s part as they want you to believe. It was a setup, deliberate destruction of the Oslo Accord.

Grandma,
it became their land in 1949, in the aftermath of the War of Independence. That’s when the current internationally recognized border (addressed by UNSC resolution 242) was established.

I found this conclusion so charming that I wish I had seen the program:

“The other players, especially Albright and Clinton, came across as the tough, competent and impressive people they are”

For some of us, that sounds comparable to saying that the Smurfs came across as the large, dangerous, red people they are. Some evidence for your conclusions would be helpful. In making the argument, you might begin with an examination of the Clinton administration triumphs during the Rwandan genocide.

Oh well, maybe the local PBS station will show it again, if they haven’t already. And if the program does show them as tough, competent, and impressive, then I will have to give the BBC credit for some effective propaganda.

I saw about two-thirsd of the documentary and it seemed different from the version of events I’d read about in the New York Review of Books which Grandma mentions above, and incidentally, what I read seems different from what she read. It also seemed different from the version in Charles Enderlin’s book Shattered Dreams. I thought the documentary was biased in favor of Clinton and Albright. Th word “Taba” was never mentioned. The controversy over whether Barak’s original offer amounted to a collection of Bantustans wasn’t mentioned.

What came out in the Robert Malley version of events (in the New York Review) was that everyone was to blame–no one came out looking good. I think this documentary was slanted to make Clinton/Albright look good, when it seems clear that Clinton’s desire to get an agreement before his term was over probably helped cause the mess that ensued.

Maybe it got better in the part I didn’t see, but the human rights of Palestinians got short-changed. There was a great deal about suicide bombing, as was proper, but the human rights violations of Palestinians seemed to be compressed into that portion about Jenin. I often encounter people who don’t know that the majority of the civilians killed in the conflict have been Palestinian and you wouldn’t know any differently from the portion of the documentary that I watched, though there were a couple of mentions of death tolls at various points in the conflict. You wouldn’t know from watching this documentary that Palestinians have anything to be upset about, except when Israelis react brutally to their suicide bombing attacks. This is the impression I think the average person receives from most US coverage and I expected the BBC to be better. I was wrong.

‘at the end of the film Arafat refuses on camera to share with Israel sovereignty over Temple Mount, the place of great religious and national importance to Jews’

Er yes I know that. I did actually see the film you know. But the point is that you explicitly claimed (above) that Arafat wanted the Jewish Old Quarter of Jerusalem. (And let me quote: ‘As the film made clear, by ‘our land’ Arafat meant the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City as well. ‘)

Wrong.

Incidentally, if the elections in Palestine had gone more your way, with, say, a more ‘pliable’ candidate having won, I assume that all your doubts about the electoral process would have vanished, yes?

Isn’t it funny, how (as recently happened in Venezuela) concern for democracy only surfaces when our preferred candidate loses? (Or in this case, someone whom we dislike wins?).

CNN: A landslide for Arafat

18 (donald johnson): there were two very different versions in the NY Review of Books: one by Barak and Morris, another by Malley and Agha.
I agree that there was nothing about Palestinians being upset about anything, especially the corruption and despotism of Arafat and his cronies who knew that if violence and terror were not directed against Israel, they would explode into their faces

20 (brendan) I knew you’d pick on the ‘Jewish Quarter’. The Western Wall may not be technically part of the Jewish quarter; my mistake. It doesn’t make Arafat’s intransigence look any better though or the point I made wrong.

I was not concerned for democracy in PA. My ‘concern’ was for your calling a currupt thug that brought ruin upon his people ‘democratically elected’

21 (abb1) You are welcome. The 242 (and the 338) are in public domain, along with the comments of the US and UK representatives in the UN who drafted them. There is even a spelling out that ‘territories’ are not the same as ‘the territories’.

There is even a spelling out that ‘territories’ are not the same as ‘the territories’.

Let me guess: ‘territories’ is any part of ‘the territories’, correct? And thus by crowding 3 million ethnically inferior folks on any one square mile of ‘the territories’ surrounding it by 30-feet tall wall and then withdrawing troops from this ‘territory’ will technically fulfil Israel’s obligations under 242. Got it, sounds reasonable.

Can someone remind me what Sharon did that amounted to both irresponsible as well as provocative grandstanding? If Arafat had visited the Dome the day before, would that have been grandstanding? I assume for everybody here this is perhaps the simplest, least interesting point in the peace process – both sides must get free access to their religious sites and the area must not be disturbed. I agree that Sharon was provocative and irresponsible in exercising a right we all agree he was fully entitled to, but seen in the abstract that seems absurd – perhaps one should say the other side was irresponsible in being provoked, or pretending to have been.

Thanks for the heads up on the film. What I’d really like is to see a film that tackles all the problems of the real world that the essays in the New York Review of Books lays out. Justice will have nothing to do with any solution they may find, at least not in any direct way. At this point, the only justice is to find a way to stop the fighting and resume something akin to stable life; it is this goal that Sharon knowingly put aside by going to the Temple Mount. His disgusting failure, however, was in keeping with his personal history, and does not differ except in specifics from the personal failures of Arafat, who feigned distance from murder as a political tool.
In short, when you look at this issue with no particular axe to grind (is there such a position?), the only justice that remains is to find a solution that people can live with, rather than the one that is “deserved”. At this point, it doesn’t seem to me that many people there “deserve” much.

I’m having a little trouble with the timeline here. Unless I am deeply mistaken, the Camp David talks had broken down by July 25, 2000 (discussion about why it broke down is deferred). Sharon didn’t go to the Temple Mount until September 28, 2000. Right? Or was there another time?

And if I’m not mistaken, there is strong evidence that the Palestinians were planning the intifada from early July (immediately after the breakdown of the talks and predating the Temple Mount incident).
See for example http://jewishweek.org/news/newscontent.php3?artid=3846 here or the Mitchell report.

“Had Arafat accompanied 1000 armed thugs managed to visit the Western Wall”

abb1, a typical example of why you’re not a reasonable proponent of the Palestinians’ claims in arguments about this dispute.

SH, that’s my understanding, and what I meant by “pretending”.

And if I’m not mistaken, there is strong evidence that the Palestinians were planning the intifada from early July

Sebastian, you are mistaken. How silly can you be to say something is in a public report when it isn’t?

From the Mitchell Report:

In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.

The Sharon visit did not cause the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.

A long quote to provide some needed context.

IMHO the actual BBC program was fairly good because it focussed on the negotiations, the persons involved, and their motives instead of the often disputed facts.

The difference between you and me, Grandma, is that I agree with the fact that Palestinians should be upset by the corruption in their leaders, but you don’t apparently agree that they should also be upset to live under a brutal apartheid system which is enforced (as such systems must) by torture, repression, and sometimes indiscriminate violence. I wouldn’t object to a documentary that included both aspects of the problem, as well as others.

I hope that didn’t post, because I’ll add one more thing–the Barak and Morris addition was interesting to me chiefly because it showed how racist Barak was. Morris, of course, is the honest Israel historian who openly applauds the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and regrets that it wasn’t more thorough. They made an interesting pair.

abb1: “Nah, Ralph, no solution’s possible without justice.”

Well, if this means justice for everyone, then I imagine there is no solution, because there is no way that everyone (Jews, Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories, and Palestinian refugees) will have justice. Someone – and by that I mean lots of individuals, all with lives to live and wrongs to right – will suffer.

On the other hand, what I think you mean is justice for one side. To which I would reply: no solution’s possible if there is justice (for only one side).

That’s just silly, Donald – why should Palestinians be more upset by the corruption in their politicians than, say, Americans or Israelis or Russians? Yeah, right – pick the 75-year-old Palestinian politician sitting in the basement of the half-destroyed compound in Ramallah waiting for a missile fired to assassinate him and scold him for corruption, you’re so fair-minded.

A, justice for all, regardless of ethnicity; I don’t see why it would be impossible. The PLO backed by a vast majority of the population agreed to 22% of Palestine for their independent state with capital in East Jerusalem; refugees can be compensated, paid off to go elsewhere if that’s what the Israelis want – what’s the problem?

Rilkefan, I don’t detect any unreasonable tone in my response. It seems perfectly factual and logical and there’s no emotional language whatsoever.

Here it is again (typo corrected):

Had Arafat accompanied by 1000 armed thugs managed to visit the Western Wall, you’ve had plenty of people being provoked or pretending to have been.

Had Sharon visited the al-Aqsa site alone, no one probably would’ve even noticed.

Where’s this emotional language?

Rilkefan,

A rather odd remark. If you want to dispute the Mitchell report, you’re welcome. The link SH gave was rather short on actual information, and it concerned information given to the Mitchell commission. Whose conclusions I quoted.

But it is rather strange to refer to a report if your point is the opposite of what is in that report.

45 postings on the Middle East without a single comparison to Hitler or Nazism! This must be a new record. Congratulations to all.

It is Israel’s insistance on territorial gain through settlements compared to the pre-1967 borders which is the indefensible part of Israel’s – and the US’s – negotiating position. It is Israeli bigotry, and bigotry alone, which has put the settlements on the land captured in 1967, and it is Israeli bigotry, and bigotry alone, which is trying to keep them there.

I want to just mention, that as a reader of this blog, I found the exchange on this topic really started off interesting and maintained a level for far longer than most visiting the same topic – or topos – so that says something about crookedtimber. Nice that you took the chance.
The comments are a good example of what seems like the nature of all engaged exchange through or on the ‘tenacious’ Palestine / Israel subject – that is, if left unmediated, the exchange soon follows the path of least resistance. To avoid leaving the general topic and going straight to pure feelings, the discourse starts fortifying it with specialists, dates, debate over what 242 means, what line is what, the inevitable New York Times references and the rebuttal journals and the like… it is perplexing, this sort of “readiness” at any moment, as what has become a necessary way of life for some (myself included) now over generations, because history matters. But sometimes I would like to be surprised that another example ocurs instead.. Any main topic that could be developed is always seemingly pushed out of the way as it spirals into one ongoing mode. Anyway, as I said, I think the example crookedtimber managed was rewarding to catch in action.
As for the BBC documentary, I am interested if the Bush claim that “God told him to” is still going to appear. But I go read blogs because I am a bit too tired and cynical at this point in time specifically in regards to the role of media, documentary, history, and Palestine / Israel. Let’s just say I mean whether its England’s BBC discourse by politicians ( who love to think they are history) or the upcoming Steven Spielberg feature movie on the 1972 Munich Olympics, either way a main axiom has long ago been firmly implemented, concerning producing official history on this discourse, and representing it .

A, justice is a solution that enough on the weak side will accept. If you throw me a dollar while robbing me at gun point – I may accept it, but that’s not justice. You’ll have to give up your weapon, stand with me before an impartial judge and accept the verdict – that’s justice.

Your concern about illegal settlers is touching, but justice is not about making perpetrators of injustice feel good, it’s exactly the opposite.

Rilkefan, I get a feeling that it’s you who’s being overly emotional here. I responded directly to your hypothetical: what if Arafat did exactly the same that Sharon has done? You don’t like the answer, perhaps feel provoked now? Well, here you go, that the answer to your hypothetical.

“A, justice is a solution that enough on the weak side will accept.”

That’s about as weasley as you can get. How does an individual belong to the weak side? Does the weak side change? (Weren’t Jews the weak side in 1948?)

Would you give compensation for the victims of suicide bombers? Who pays for that?

Fine and mighty words like “justice” are great to bandy about, but in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there can’t be justice. The enemies of peace are those who think there can be.

Victims of suicide bombers do get compensation, they do get it now; relatives of the dead are entitled to life-time payments. They get it from the Israeli government that is responsible – yes, indirectly, but fully responsible – for the suicide bombings. So, I don’t see any problem here whatsoever.

Look, a month ago Israeli government evacuated Gaza after 38 years of military occupation, after killing and maiming thousands of innocent people there, radicalizing hundreds of thousands, destroying infrastructure and agriculture of the natives. I always suspect the worst there, but even I was amazed to learn that, apparently, most young Arabs living in Gaza have never seen the sea, weren’t allowed anywhere near the seashore. Anyway, you tell me: what was the reason for this occupation? What has been achieved? Name one positive outcome of this 38-year occupation, anything? What’s the reason to continue occupying the West Bank and parts of Syrian and Lebanese territories?

I simply don’t understand the source of the controversy here, I see no logic, I see no complexity, I detect no nuance. Name one good reason why the Israelis shouldn’t withdraw into 1967 borders – today, this morning, compensate the refugees – today – as prescribed by 38-year-old UNSC resolutions – and live happily ever after? The other side agreed to this solution, what is the fucking problem?

I do think the Israelis should withdraw to the 1967 line.

I don’t see why Israelis should be compensating relatives of victims of suicide bombers. Calling the Israeli government “responsible” for these heinous acts is callous, immoral, and (I can’t think of a better word), idiotic. If that is abb1’s notion of justice, well, fill in the blank.

I also don’t see why Israel should be compensating Palestinian refugees (from 1948). If anything I think it probably should be up to Germany, Austria, and other European powers.

Again, I would just repeat that it is people like you, who see black-and-white, on either side, rather than grey, who are the main obstacle to peace.

“…it is the collective status that matters.”

“Collective” justice will mean that there is not justice for many individuals.

“The Palestinian State should compensate for the victims of suicide bombers. This of course presupposes that Palestinians have a state. Oh, and of course Israel should compensate for civilian victims of its own violent operations…”

I agree completely – or at least I agree that you must do this if you are interested in justice. But that can be very different from what you do if you want peace.