BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

israel v. palestine

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
alas
18:29 / 11.03.02
A friend of mine who is intelligent and liberal is also very pro-Israel, and knows much more about the history of the region than I do. He lost relatives in concentration camps in Europe, and realizes that his view of the situation will always be affected by that history. Most Americans are pro-Israel in a pretty knee-jerk fashion, I realize, and so I've become rather anti-Israel in recent years . . . Which is not a particularly admirable logical strategy, but perhaps not entirely unreasonable either.

I am fairly well informed, and certainly feel that Sharon is a war-criminal by any other name and smells as foul, BUT I'm also concerned by the lack of democratic processes in many predominantly Islamic states that surround Israel. I realize, on yet another hand, that the US has not played a "pro-democratic" role in the Mideast, but a "protect OUR oil interests" role, which has often favored dictatorial puppet-rulers for that region, as in other areas of the world.

I'd love, however, to have some barbelith help in sorting out my thoughts on this issue. Where do all of you intelligent folks stand? I assume that most, or at least many of you are sympathetic to Palestine, and for good reason. And I assume that you all also believe that Israel has a right to coexist in the region? Does Israel have any good, legitimate reasons to be paranoid about their vulnerability to their neighbors?

Here's the story that got me thinking this morning, on the latest violence.

[edited for clarity, to fix URL, etc. Also, I just read another recent thread on this issue in Switchboard, but it was more focused on a recent statement from Israeli soldiers, rather than seeking 'lither's attitudes toward the entire conflicted situation more generally.]

[ 11-03-2002: Message edited by: alas ]
 
 
grant
19:27 / 11.03.02
The modern state of Israel was formed violently in the wake of the Holocaust: it was Europe's collective version of the Racist Redneck's dream of sending all the darkies "back where they came from."
Unfortunately, in this case, there were already people living "back where they came from," who were more or less forcibly removed from the land with the support and approval of the British Empire (especially old Uncle Arthur) and the rest of the Allies.
Most of the recent violence concerns a later, rapid expansion of Israel to the borders held by the Israel of the Bible. That expansion took place in, what, 1967 I think, and is known as the Six Days War.
The modern state was formed in desperation and violence with plenty of imperial/colonial meddling, so yeah, there's plenty of real concern for security.
Also, bear in mind, it marked a new epoch - one in which the wandering people finally had a homeland after 2,000 years in the Diaspora. They're not gonna let go without a struggle.
 
 
sleazenation
20:00 / 11.03.02
An interesting potted history of the Israel/Palestine conflict Written by Uri Avnery, a journalist, peace activist, former member of the Knesset, and leader of Gush Shalom, the most militant part of the Israeli peace movement.
 
 
alas
22:27 / 11.03.02
thanks for the link, sn. grant, when you say,
quote: Also, bear in mind, it marked a new epoch - one in which the wandering people finally had a homeland after 2,000 years in the Diaspora. They're not gonna let go without a struggle.

do you mean that they should "let go" of their national existence? Or simply of any remnants of the idea of a secular but Jewish-dominated state? We all want "peace in the middle east," but what does it mean, anyway? it's a genuine question, for me--i'm not being rhetorical or trying to be pesky-clever, here.

A separate but also interesting question: How does the Israeli situation compare to any of the following:
1) the white dominance of South Africa, especially under apartheid?
2) northern Ireland?
3) the U.S. occupation of, well, itself--including especially all native American lands and land stolen from Mexico as a result of the 1848 Mexican-American war.

(what should peace look like in any of those places . . . ?)
 
 
Jackie Susann
23:57 / 11.03.02
quote: do you mean that they should "let go" of their national existence? Or simply of any remnants of the idea of a secular but Jewish-dominated state?

not to speak for Grant, but for most of the world the suggestion is that Israel withdraw to its pre-67 borders. there are a number of UN resolutions proposing this alternative, and they have been defeated by the US - the rest of the world, apart from the US and Israel, have held this position since at least the 70s (when Egypt seriously offered to implement it, i.e. to cease hostilities w/ Israel if the latter withdrew to its pre-67 boundaries). this is a bit scatty, sorry bout that, but essentially i think that's where it's at - outside the us, this is basically the consensus position for anyone who holds any belief in the form of the nation state - conservatives, liberals, socialists, nationalists, whatever.

i don't know enough about the comparisons you mention to comment, really. an obvious difference w/ indigenous dispossession in North America is that Palestine was a recognised state at the time of occupation, and still represents a fiercely defended (if compromised) nation state. so it's a reasonable position to defend Palestinian rights to statehood in a way it isn't (am i going to get in trouble for this? knowing nothing about indig politics in us i'm sure i'm on dodgy ground) for indigenous Americans. i don't want to defend the nation-state or US genocide against its indig population, but this is a huge difference in terms of global politics.

if the question is 'what should peace look like?' in any of these places, my suggestion is just going to derail this thread (i.e. internationalist proletarian resistance... yeah yeah fuck you i'm a dickhead) so i'll bracket the bastard.
 
 
The Natural Way
06:24 / 12.03.02
Apart from owning it in biblical times, how do the Israelies argue their right to the land? Does their claim have any legitimacy at all? I mean, I know shifting everything about now would be very difficult, but....
 
 
Baz Auckland
08:41 / 12.03.02
From what I understand, just before the recent Sharon-provoked(?) uprising that's been going on for... a year now? year and a half? a peace deal was almost signed between Barak and Arafat.

The only stikler was the 'right of return'. The Palestinians want their homes back that were taken over anywhere from in '47 to in '67. Obviously, the Israel govt. is not ready to agree to this...

...unfortunately now too, I doubt that Sharon would be willing to even offer the rest of Barak's terms to the Palestinians.
 
 
BioDynamo
08:48 / 12.03.02
Fuck all nations, the idea of one people - one nation is behind all this. The sooner the world is globalized, the better.

This goes for Israel - Palestine, Spain - Basque Country - France, Turkey - Irak - Syria - Kurdistan - Iran, Sweden - Finland - Norway - Lapland - Russia, most of Africa and South America, Indonesia - East Timor - Irian Jaya - Aceh... Fuck the lot. No Border - No Nation, only that will stop the killing.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:57 / 12.03.02
Barry: The Palestinians and Israelis naturally have different explanations for the failure of talks between Arafat and Barak. Pro Israelis ususally say it was the right to return and Jerusalem.
The Palestinians claim that no offer was concretely made, but that the kind of offers being talked about involved Israel controlling all the water, international borders and some "internal borders" that would control the movement of Palestinians. I can find a link to the latter, if you like. I find it odd that the Palestinian position is rarely discussed in the media.

Alas: Don't want to gwet into all your examples but isn't Northern Ireland well on the way to peace?
And although I hate to say it, this is due in no small part to Major and Blair. The "path to peace" has been one of compromise where the British have sat down and actually recognised some of the grievances of the republicans.
 
 
sleazenation
08:57 / 12.03.02
biodynamo- er the diversity of Yugoslavia didn't prevent the bloodshed there after the fall of of communism.

To oversimplyfy the conflict as *just* being about nationhood and land is i think a mistake that ignores many of the other religious and ethnic tensions that are intimately intertwined with the situation...
 
 
alas
10:10 / 12.03.02
thanks all for your thoughts, this is really quite useful for me... i'm strongly influenced by edward said's writings, in general, and take a pretty much pro-Palestinian perspective, yet when this friend of mine gets onto the topic of israel, i don't have enough internalized knowledge to know when he's spouting propoganda and when my own knowledge is just simply too limited ... so it helps me to just listen.

by the way, i brought up the comparisons to other situations in the world simply because they are sometimes referenced by folks and because I think it can be useful to sort out differences and similarities when international comparisons are made.

I agree that the Northern Ireland problem seems well on its way to some sort of resolution ... but I guess that's why it's an interesting point of comparison. On my last visit to England it struck me that I heard more than one pointed comment about the US's lack of understanding (no shock there) of the complexities of that situation, and critiques of the fact that many people in the US have been sympathetic to and financially supportive of the IRA, especially before 9/11...

Back on the home front, for me: the US has throughout its history signed treaties with numerous indiginous tribes, recognizing their sovereinty again and again . . . and again and again we have broken those treaties. (Thank god we don't do that any more . . . </irony> ).

The US/Mexico example, although obviously from about 100 years earlier than the Israeli situation, is perhaps actually even more similar: we declared war on a sovereign nation in 1848, which many historians see as a very thinly disguised land-grab. And we grabbed a _huge_ chunk, including Texas and California and most points between. Today, we control the movements of Mexicans who need to travel into the US for labor, which they depend on us for, because we are so much wealthier than they are; we are in fact killing more and more of them every year as they try to cross the border illegally, and since 9/11 we've stepped up the border controls even more (until that point they had actually been slowly relaxing the surveillance slightly as republican$ were told to stop demonizing the brown labor force, because most of their top donors recognize that they depend on the availability of cheap migrant labor from Mexico--service and agricultural and meat packing industries esp); and we control the water in the region: the Rio Grande divides the two countries, but guess who gets a trickle and who gets a flow ...

(and just think, W wouldn't be in power today if the US were somehow forced to go back to our pre-1848 borders . . .)
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:17 / 12.03.02
Oh God, I've just read the latest reports on this and I AM SO ANGRY and distressed. Bombing refugee camps! Detaining all men between the ages of 15-45, marching them off for interrogation to make sure they're not on the wanted list! Killing policemen and unarmed guards! Firing on refugees from helicopters!

I think this does tie in with your initial post, alas, becasue it's pretty clear from Sharon's actions (and bear in mind here that some members of Likud don't think he's going far enough - a couple of right-wingers have resined from the Israeli parliament for this reason) that he thinks that *all Palestinians are terrorists* and that *Palestine is a terrorist state* and that he is therefore justified in these abhorrent actions...

I think this is illegitimate, and it is certainly not the opinion of all Israelis by a long shot (c.f. Shimon Peres); but I *would* say that it is unsurprising (if perhaps unjustifiable) that Israelis should feel a little concerned about their neighbours, many of whom have long-range missiles and so on. HOWEVER - given that the US arms Israel, and Israel therefore has as much access to weaponry as its neighbours *and more*, the scale of paranoia at the moment seems to me to be unjustified. Especially when they are directing all this fury at the Palestinians - a small, dispossessed and crushed people. It has been suggested that Sharon would like to goad the Palestinians into more guerilla warfare-style acts, so that he can 'legitimately' obliterate the Palestinian state - and the longer this goes on, the less unlikely this seems...
 
 
sleazenation
11:29 / 12.03.02
Soi guess one of the many questions is how much blood does Sharon have to spill before people refuse to vote for him again- when are the next elections due in Israel? I mean what are the statistics? How many more Israli civilians have been killed under Sharon (and as a result of his policies) than Burak or Rabin?
 
 
alas
11:29 / 12.03.02
yes--it was the bombing of the refugee camps that really got me thinking this morning.
Who first used the term "terrorist state"? Am I right in thinking that's a US invention?
(Or is it my haphazard sense of world history and US-centrism at work again?)
 
 
sleazenation
11:45 / 12.03.02
Isn't the term terrorist state an oxymoron? States can sponser terrorist organisations and activities but any action they take overtly is an act of war/defense? or am i being naieve? Terrorism is traditional means of resistence for stateless groups or for citizens of occupied nations.

My copy of Webster's dictionary simply lists it as the use of terror as a means of coersion- ...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:48 / 12.03.02
I can't find a discussion of the origins of the term, but I think it is fairly recent - a sort of adaptation of 'rogue state' to suit the current international climate. 'Rogue state' is also a fairly new concept, I think. In fact the term is a complete load of hooey, but it does lay bare some of the current US/UK government thinking on this - it used to be the case that resistance organisations were 'freedom fighters' or 'terrorists', depending on whether the US/UK government supported them or not; now entire nation states can be declared terrorist (and therefore illegitimate) by another nation state, which nation state is then justified in waging war on that state (where it would not be if it was simply making war on another sovereign state...). Hence I heard an American hawk on the radio this morning saying that an attack on Iraq was not an attack on the Iraqi nation or people, but on 'the infrastructure of terror'... it seems to me that this is what is happening in Palestine; and perhaps the US cannot really rein Sharon in because the hypocrisy of this attitude would becoem even more apparent.

The whole system is bankrupt.
 
 
pacha perplexa
12:00 / 12.03.02
Methinks the reason why US teams up with Israel every time an agreement is set with the palestinians is that this way they can keep some western control/influence over the region, in terms of territory.

Besides it's a kind of message for arab states, like "Oi! We, the forces of the democratic, modern-civilized world are here, in front of your dark-aged doors. So no weird movements".

Strategy. (and a Cold War one, back in the 70's)

The fact that Sharon can be called a fascist dictator (I know "dictator"'s not the right term, because he's been elected, but anyway...) ain't no novelty. US government loved financing rightist (is that how you say?) dictatorships and coups d'etat two decades ago. It's still very convenient.
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:04 / 12.03.02
Of course, it's also best to remember that literally nobody gives a shit about the Palestinians...
 
 
sleazenation
12:09 / 12.03.02
A statement underlined by these pics

[/LIST]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:09 / 12.03.02
Why, some of my best friends give a shit about the Palestinians...

... but I think I take your point; yes, perhaps the neighbouring nations don't give a toss about Palestine per se, but they certainly give a toss about US support of an expansionist Israel, and the two do pretty much go together... is that what you meant?
 
 
Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?
12:37 / 12.03.02
I meant that the neighboroughing countries have in 35 years generally managed to resist giving Palestinians anything resembling a decent stab at a normal life or a clean slate. That their insistence on Palestinians being returned to their homelands has given them excuse to stick them in refugee camps where they can function as a constant scar on the conscience of the UN and a recrutiing camp for the Intifada. And, actually, nobody *likes* the Palestinians, if I remember my father's happy tales aright - they had a reputation for being generally better-educated than their neighbours, and intrinsically suspicious, partly because of their competence and work ethic. Not, in fact, a million miles away from European attitudes toward the Jews...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:44 / 12.03.02
I see - interesting. Thanks.
 
 
rizla mission
12:48 / 12.03.02
You know, in a way I wish they'd stop trying to come up with fucking transparent ('terrorist' related) justifications for their daily bombings/fights/massacres and fucking ADMIT that they're at war because they don't like each other..
 
 
MJ-12
13:17 / 12.03.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Horror:
I meant that the neighboroughing countries have in 35 years generally managed to resist giving Palestinians anything resembling a decent stab at a normal life or a clean slate

Yes, interestingly enough, the Palestinians in the region who are the best off are those whose families didn't leave during the formation of Israel, but remained and became citizens.
 
 
grant
14:01 / 12.03.02
quote:Originally posted by alas:

do you mean that they should "let go" of their national existence? Or simply of any remnants of the idea of a secular but Jewish-dominated state?

I think Crunchy pretty much covered that one.
There are two forces at work in the national psyche of Israel: entitlement (This land is mine, God gave this land to me...) and persecution (death camps & suicide bombers).
It's not a mindset that prepares one to give any ground.

quote:
We all want "peace in the middle east," but what does it mean, anyway? it's a genuine question, for me--i'm not being rhetorical or trying to be pesky-clever, here.

I think it means living in a place where you can own your own home and business without worrying if anyone's going to shoot you or blow you up. That's the fundamental thing.

How we would get there... well, that goes back to Genesis, really, when Abraham chose his younger son Isaac as heir rather than the older son Ishmael (wife didn't like the concubine). Of course, that's not to say they have to kill each other all the time. But you'd have to address a division that deep. Cuz they both think they're entitled to Jerusalem.

I mean, unless there's some new version of partitioning that actually works... or maybe get the two tribes to recognize they're really one family.

quote:
A separate but also interesting question: How does the Israeli situation compare to any of the following:
1) the white dominance of South Africa, especially under apartheid?
2) northern Ireland?
3) the U.S. occupation of, well, itself--including especially all native American lands and land stolen from Mexico as a result of the 1848 Mexican-American war.

(what should peace look like in any of those places . . . ?)

All of those cases involved an oppressor at war with an indigenous population. In the southwestern US, the struggle is going on, but is basically over with the Mexicans either booted to Mexico or else assimilated into US culture. Although there does seem to be a kind of change in the wind -- it's looking like the next governor of California is going to be of Mexican descent, and all the marketing analyses point to a burgeoning Latin market within the US.
In South Africa, the oppressors, outnumbered and unsupported, have basically "lost" and are doing their best to assimilate in the other direction. It's interesting in that case because the international ties (economic *and* cultural) to Europe are still channelled through the minority-owned (or at least minority-run) businesses. One of the great hopes for ZA is that, thus far, they haven't followed Zimbabwe's example and kicked out the former oppressors, handing their lands and goods over to "good soldiers in the struggle." Instead, whitey goes and does his thing with the black man calling the shots.
So far, it seems to be working.
Crime rates in the city (especially the unreal hells of Gauteng) are unbelievable, and the economy is floundering, but there's no coup or massive massacring.

One of the main mechanisms behind this, I think, are the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings. It gave the society an outlet and a feeling of holding wrongdoers accountable *without* actually blowing up civilians or government buildings. Maybe something like that could work elsewhere in the world - maybe even in Israel.
 
 
seamonkey
18:02 / 12.03.02
The problem with the Israel/Palestine issue is largely the way its being framed in the media. I've been to the region on several occassions during the past decade and had the opportunity to speak to both Israelis and Palestinians about what is going on there. There are many on both sides who truly desire peace and want nothing more than simple coexistance. Unfortunately, its the extremists on both sides who bask in the media spotlight. This needs to be brought up given recent events.

There are a number of Israelis, for example, who not only refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories, but also who are refusing to serve in the military at all, on moral grounds. And for Israelis, that's practically unheard of. However, there are also a number of religious extremists among the Israelis, including but not limited to the settlers, who provoke the Palestinians by taking pot shots at them, setting off bombs, etc. For political reasons, they are not labelled "terrorists" by the Israeli govt, which is currently in the hands of the right wingers there. Also remember is was from just such a milieu that the assassin of Rabin emerged...Rabin was probably the last realistic chance Israel had for a lasting peace in the region. Maybe Shimon Peres could pull it off, but I'm not so sure.

On the Palestinian side, there are a number of them who abhore violence but they are afraid to speak out. Also, not all the Palestinian factions agree with each other, and Arafat only has some control over the secular Palestinians who make up the PLO, which is itself an umbrella group. The Muslim extremists of Hammas and Islamic Jihad (among others) are separate from them and do not take their orders from Arafat, despite what is being said by the Israeli govt. The secular Palestinians run the full political gamut, from the ultra-nationalists like Al-Fatah to Marxists like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. During their earlier years of setting up shop in Jordan and Lebanon during the 60's and 70's, there was occasional infighting between factions, even during Lebanon's civil war (which some say they helped provoke).

In a nutshell, this is about many shades of grey. Never take the media's word on anything that is going on over there. Also, Israel's intel agency Mossad is notorious for using agent provocateurs and for trying to derail the Israeli peace movement (such as "Peace Now") and for trying to intimidate critics of Israeli policy toward Palestinians. And some of the Palestinian extremists aren't much better when it comes to their own who question what is going on. Other nations like Syria and Iran are also actively involved in trying to manipulate things to their advantage, and of course there's always the ever-present US hegemony in the region. Ie. its a fucking mess.

I guess the real question that should be asked is, "Who benefits from this conflict?" Both sides are using American-made weapons, so I guess that's a clue, wouldn't you say? Keep that in mind when the whole region starts to go up in flames after Gulf War II breaks out.
 
 
Baz Auckland
06:49 / 13.03.02
This Just In: Israel Numbering Palestinian Prisoners?

"Raanan Gissin, a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, acknowledged that numbering prisoners in such a way was bad P.R"

May be nothing really, but Very very creepy nonetheless...

(Edited due to faulty web link)

[ 13-03-2002: Message edited by: Barry Auckland ]
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:58 / 13.03.02
UN endorses Palestinian State, condemns illegal Israeli occupation...
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:58 / 13.03.02
Does this signal a significant policy shift on the part of the US? (to allow such a move)

We can only hope. In the meantime, Sharon seems determined to get as strong a bargaining position as possible.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
08:58 / 13.03.02
I think it is the first time they have supported a resolution which condemns the occupation - so yes, it is a farily significant shift. Whether any action results is of course another matter. According to that article, John Negroponte said this:
quote: "Our intent in doing this was to give an impulse to peace efforts and to decry violence and terror"
- which doesn't really imply anything other than a very general intention...
 
 
sleazenation
08:58 / 13.03.02
Aslo, IIRC the UN recognised the state of Tibet for around 50 years without it ever propting a Chinese withdrawl - The UN have also recenly (in the last 3 years or so) ceased to recognise Tibet as an independent state.

UN resolutions come and go. And no one takes a blind bit of notice.
 
 
grant
13:31 / 13.03.02
Here's a petition, for what it's worth:

Sons of Abraham: unite!

It's goofy, but nice. Interesting to see the mix of comments with the signatures.
 
 
seamonkey
14:38 / 13.03.02
I like it, its a nice sentiment given everything else that is going on.

I do think though that Ariel Sharon should eventually be brought before the Hague for crimes against humanity, its long overdue. The current fighting (or maybe we should just call it a war now?) is largely his fault. In summation: He provoked the Palestinians by showing up at the Temple Mount with a huge security entourage back in Sept. of 2000, which not only helped to deny access to the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque, but his very presence reminded them of the slaughter at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1983 that he was also largely responsible for. He then uses the resulting intifada as his excuse for running for prime minister on a "law & order" platform, vowing to help put down the violence that he provoked in the first place. In short, he's an utter bastard. Also, the numbers on the arms of Palestinian prisoners/detainees sickened me. What the hell were the Israelis thinking?

Maybe its finally time for the UN to actively step in as peacekeepers. I can't think of anything else that would work, though I'm sure if that did happen the pro-Israel lobby in the US would be freaking out, Republicans included. In the long run though, it would help save lives, Palestinian AND Israeli alike.

Jeez. Where's The Authority when you need them?
 
 
Baz Auckland
19:58 / 13.03.02
It seems extra awful that they've stepped up their operations and invaded the West Bank in a large way, just before the peace mission arrives. Is this just to show the Palestinians that no concessions will be made? or is it just part of the ongoing effort to kill the Palestinians?

This just in: Cheney finds it hard to get people in the Mid-East interested in fighting Iraq.
 
 
sleazenation
20:05 / 13.03.02
an even more cynical view is that Sharon is giving Ramallah a good kicking now and sending in the troops so he can appear to be making concessions in pulling them out for US special envoy Anthony Zinni's visit...

[edited to get the right visiting US indignatory]

[ 14-03-2002: Message edited by: sleazenation ]
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply