Part 7: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[AndHarry]

Thread 1 - started when 3 Israeli boys were found murdered

Thread 2 - Operation Protective Edge

Thread 3 - Operation Protective Edge, the wider conflict and international involvement

Thread 4 - Operation Protective Edge and the different views in Israel and the wider international community

Thread 5 - in which Operation Protective Edge came to an end and the discussion continued

Thread 6 - themes of the conflict, what happens next and how ordinary people can get involved

Welcome to Thread 7.

KareninsGirl

I was not one of the two people who Londongirl asked. I don't know why she decided to introduce the idea of annihilation, and she won't say.

I think that you are mistaken in thinking the west created Israel though: Israel has existed for thousands of years and Jews are indigenous peoples, as proven archaeologically and historically.

The borders which were drawn up after ww11 were negotiated over time, but each time they were put to the palestinians, they were flatly refused.

I think the annihilation issue is with reference to the hamas charter which states very clearly that it's is Their aim for Israel and Jews generally.

and piglet, I note you have still not answered in any case.

I do not feel impelled to reply to a question addressed to someone else.

Londongirl has not answered either of my questions addressed to her.

KG, i was talking about the STATE of Israel, which hasn't existed for thousands of years - it was created a few decades ago. And no one has denied the existence of indigenous Jews in the area. They made up 7% of the local population - before the massive influx of immigrants in the 20s and 30s, though even after this manipulated demographic shift, the Jews barely made up 30% of the populace. Yet over 55% of palestinian land was appropriated for the Jewish 'homeland' and the thousands of newcomers who hadn't - unlike the dispossessed Palestinians they forcibly replaced - lived there for umpteen generations. Are you saying that's equitable? Or do you not agree with equality and proportionality? Borders were 'negotiated over time'? Who with? On what basis? Why should such inequitable terms not be 'flatly refused'?

However, any of the above discussion is simply theoretical if you take the view - for which there is a strong line of legal argument - that the UN resolution is not/ was never legally binding!

Hamas again? So what about their offer of 'peaceful coexistence' in 2006 and their recent offer of a '10 year truce' in return for what should pretty much be their basic rights (eg fishing rights, which btw were promised in the last 'ceasefire' but have not been honoured by Israel)?! www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/game-changing-usisrael-lies-hamas-iran-demand-palestinian-justice-destroy-israel.html

but those who do answer the question are flatly ignored anyway.

are you against israel following international law and where war crimes have been committed them being fully investigated by international agencies and addressed?

someone else has said the goal is equality - which in a way is saying the same thing because the inequality is being upheld via the breaking of international law and war crimes.

so the absolute basic of what has to be achieved is to reach a point of lawfulness. if a state is willfully breaking the law and committing war crimes there is clearly no peace table to sit at or foundation on which to find a way forward because we're not even at the starting line.

basically international law is the fundamental and the foundation. israel has to join the rest of the world on the same playing field.

if it wants to be a trading, recognised, member of the world community it has to act according to the laws and standards that community has committed itself to. if it does not do that it isn't a member of that community - it is a rogue state and deserves to be treated as such.

it is israel that needs to make a decision about that - tbh it looks like israel has made it's decision and announced it loud and clear. ergo it is time for the community to face and accept that and act accordingly. we can't just look the other way anymore.

Good lord, this last bit of thread sounds like politicians on Newsnight trying to dodge an awkward question!

But it's not such an awkward question, is it? If you are care for the plight of one displaced people (the Palestinians), do you want the Jews to be displaced elsewhere?

I don't want either side annihilated. I want both sides to arrive at a fair deal. Which we don't have at present.

But the question remains - do the Palestinians achieve self-determination only for the Jews to lose it?

QnBoudi, thanks for the link to the film. I haven't had time to watch it yet, but will try and do so soon as it looks interesting.

In this case, is equality taken to mean a one-state solution: namely Israel-Palestine to be one secular country with equal rights and freedom of movement for all citizens regardless of nationality/religion/ethnicity? This is what Miko Peled wants. However, in his book, he also describes the arguments he has with his brother, Rami Elhanan. Despite being strongly critical of the Israeli government, Elhanan nevertheless remains a Zionist and instead supports a two-state solution. He says a one-state solution would be like forcing a couple who hate each other to remain together rather than getting divorced. How would such a country run its armed forces? Would it remain a Jewish homeland that any Jewish people around the world would be entitled to emigrate to? Would all Palestinian refugees and their descendants (2nd to 4th generation) be entitled to the right of return? Peled says that Israelis and Palestinians would have to sit down and work these things out together - which they don't exactly having a history of doing!

PigletJohn, I would be grateful if you could answer two questions from me (anyone else is welcome to answer as well):

What, in your ideal world, would be the best outcome for the Palestinians and Israelis? What steps would you take towards resolving the Palestinian/Israeli problem?

Yes, I know we're all ordinary and relatively powerless people on a parenting forum, and we can't change history, but it's still interesting to make suggestions and hear other people's views.

WRT to international law - +972 magazine has an article on Israeli institutions seeking to obtain the benefits of the international legal order while refusing to accept the corresponding burdens and obligations.

halfdrunkcoffee

"What, in your ideal world, would be the best outcome for the Palestinians and Israelis?"

In my view the best outcome would be for the Israelis to stop invading and occupying yet more Palestinian land, and to stop building and expanding Illegal Settlements in the Occupied Territories. I think it is improbable that Israel will do that. Additionally, I would like to see Israel dismantling Illegal Settlements in the Occupied Territories. I think there is zero chance of that.

Further, I would like to see Israel give non-Jews the same rights that it gives to Jews, in both Israel and the Occupied Territories. I think there is zero chance of that (unless it has previously completed the process of ethnically cleansing Israel and the Occupied Territories of non-Jews).

I would like to see Israel allow an independent Palestine to exist, and to agree that there should be some borders, and where those borders should be. I currently see zero chance of that.

I would like to see an independent peacekeeping force keeping the two sides apart, and an external body capable of sanctioning either side. I see zero chance of that.

"What steps would you take towards resolving the Palestinian/Israeli problem?"
I do not believe there will be any genuine negotiation by Israel while it remains in charge of US foreign policy, so that it can do whatever it wants and always act with impunity. I have no control over US foreign policy so I am not in a position to take any steps.

Half drunk, that film does put forward a 1 state solution. You recommended peled's book earlier which i bought but haven't started reading yet - still working my way through ghada karmi (who also argues for a1 state solution) and Alison weir. The issues you raise are all valid wrt having to sit down and work out the detail and as you and PJ note, there's little evidence of / success at that to date. One view I recall (though i cant remember where it came from nowl. Perhaps it was peled?) was that if there is genuinely to be peace, it will require major changes in attitude, and that could well come through starting over and looking seriously at a 1 state solution; it is very unlikely to come through the 2 state option which seems at a complete impasse for whatever reasons.

I am unsure of the way forward but as an atheist i, personally, feel really uncomfortable with the notion of a religious state; it doesn't sit well, IMO, with the notions of equality of rights or freedom or democracy. I have no objections to people living their lives as they see fit, but there are just too many tensions when it comes to ensuring and imposing regulation and control. Instead of nurturing tolerance (so ironic really), religion seems to breed divisions.

For what it's worth, i agree with all the points put forward by PJ and though I agree Israel is currently point blank unwilling to budge on any of these issues, (the article you linked to re international law just typifies this spoilt brat attitude) I'm not ready to say they always will be. If the Palestinians can maintain hope despite their desperate lot, we ought to be able to. But more practical than that, I'm not up to, I'm afraid. All I've got to bring right now is the hope that the groundswell of public opinion will eventually gain sufficient momentum to lead to genuine change.

Then again, having said that, i am afraid that, as has been documented in relation to the worldwide impact of the Israel lobby throughout the 20s, 30s and beyond, with its underground activities (raising finance, gunrunning for the Zionist terrorist organisations, pressuring politicians and public figures of all descriptions to push through measures favourable to Israel, such as the UN resolution), any ground made up in the search for an equitable solution will be undermined through similar behind the scenes agitation.

Just cos it's not complicated, doesn't mean it's easy...

but that IS my answer. i don't want to dictate the answer of outcome for other people's only to have the international community uphold international law and for no one to commit war crimes and human rights travesties against other peoples.

once there is a stage of legality, when israel gives up the right to commit war crimes and to break international law they will actually be at a place where real negotiations, within the framework of international law and the commitment to uphold it, can begin.

if you don't even have an agreed standard of acceptable behaviour and rules you will stick to and defend there is no way forward. there is certainly no real chance of moving towards peace when there isn't even a commitment to keep international laws.

so for me the outcome is the following of international law, reparations for where it has been broken and THEN see where you are. allow some trust to be regained, allow some dust to settle from the trauma and brutality and then try to find a way forward on an equal footing. the breaking of international law, the illegal treatment of palestinians, prevents deliberately any kind of equal footing - that has to be removed. palestinians have to have time and resources and absence of brutality and destruction of their lives and infrastructure long enough to organise themselves economically and politically and reach a point where they can produce and elect representation for moving forward rather than just representation in teh face of trauma and brutality. israel needs to stand down from the war and hate stance and the manipulation of it's people long enough for israel too to produce and elect rational representation for moving forward rather than hate speakers and promisers of vengence.

the starting point is to cease the brutality, obey the law and have long enough for both sides to stop reacting and to begin to be a 'normal' society rather than one that sees itself constantly at war. then that rational position, with rational representatives agreeing upon the law and seeing it was being followed could look for rational solutions that the people they represented could work with.

QnBoudi - you said "the state of israel was instituted as a result of a UN process that was fiercely manipulated by Zionist activists"
What was this process?
Do explain.
It doesn't sound terribly plausible. Activists managed to manipulate the governments of 33 countries? Fiercely? How?
I think you should apply more scrutiny to your sources. Perhaps you are unaware that the concept of Jews manipulating world powers in sinister ways is a long-standing trope of anti-semitism. You personally may not be bigoted but your sources sure as hell aren't.
You have never seemed credulous or naive on your other posts. It is perfectly possible to support the Palestinian cause without dragging up hoary smears from less enlightened times.

are we back full cycle to having to distinguish between jews and zionists? no response to people's thought out answers just full circle back with - anti-semitism!

If anti-semitic allegations keep surfacing, they will keep on being challenged.

jews - zionists.

not interexchangable terms.

Not interchangeable, but quite a sizeable overlap.

To use an unpleasant example from another field of bigotry:
If someone were to say "thieving gypsies", they are using a well-known trope of abuse that is levelled at a particular ethnic group. If someone then says "thieving supporters of gypsy nationalism", whilst it is not strictly interchangeable, people can spot the underlying bigotry.

So, after centuries of nasty "jews manipulating world governments" abuse, you can be sure that saying "supporters-of-jewish-nationalism manipulating world governments" will set off a few klaxons.

Whether you think the difference is significant or not, it's still a ludicrous assertion.

The terms Zionist and Jewish are quite different. The fact that many Zionists are Jewish and many jews are Zionists should notconfuse things. Nor should criticism of certain aggressive Zionist activities be misconstrued as antisemitic.

Yes, I do like to do the research and look at sources quite critically - I am more persuaded by facts, logical argument and evidence than by unsubstantiated claims! What I said about the manipulation (is this another taboo word now, like blood metaphors?) of various governments (from Liberia to the Philippines) and the US in particular by the Israel lobby (NOT the Jewish lobby!) is entirely supported by evidence put forward by Alison weir. I've referred to this source already as being meticulously researched and referenced, and it is driven by a concern for the US as her homeland rather than from a pro Arab perspective.

An abridged version of the first three chapters (so doesn't go all the way up to 1948) of her book "Against our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the US was Used to Create Israel" is available online: ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/history.html

I can't believe that even sergeantmajor would seek to deny that the creation and expansion of Israel was and is an aim and a result of Zionism.

In hindsight, when Zionism was gaining political momentum and Jewish-Arab tensions were flaring up in Palestine, maybe all the powers that be could have said that they didn't think it was going to work out and that instead they would have an open-door policy for Jewish refugees. The fact that many were turned away (MS St Louis springs to mind) and sent back to their deaths in Europe probably led many to feel that creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine was the only option.

Anyway, I know hindsight is a wonderful thing. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of how Israel came about, it is here now and people need to find a way forward to meet the needs of everyone in the region. Whatever possible solutions are put forward, there will be people vehemently opposing them, so I agree it is certainly difficult. I've also read that when the first West Bank settlements were set up in the mid-1970s, most people thought the settlers were completely mad - the government didn't exactly promote it, but neither did they make any effort to stop it - yet now they have expanded massively, become entrenched in Israeli government policy and are a huge impediment to peace.

I will add Weir's book to my reading list (I read Martin Gilbert's history of Israel some years ago so this will doubtless provide a different perspective...) However, I am a little concerned that when I click on the Amazon.com link (though not the .co.uk one) for this book the "Books that Customers Also Bought" include two rather anti-Semitic looking ones - "Jewish-Run Concentration Camps in the Soviet Union" and "Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany" - this doesn't mean that I think that the book's arguments are anti-Semitic, but it is a bit worrying what some people are reading.

zionist = recognising Israel's right to exist

I do not understand how zionism became a shameful thing

I am a zionist. I want Israel to exist. any sane person would.

kareninsgirl "zionist = recognising Israel's right to exist"

that doesn't make sense.

You are claiming that nobody except Zionists recognises Israel's right to exist, and that everyone who recognises Israel's right to exist is a Zionist.

Not true.