What Palestine?
For those who talk about Palestine, some interesting reading material.
Money quote from the first link:
The Palestinian people [do] not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan. (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)
Another one:
That’s true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn’t capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan’s King Hussein. I can’t help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.
And… will consessions ever be enough (from this article)?
Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.
But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
From the second article I link to, for those who believe that Israel is just as much to blame for today’s problems as the Arabs:
If Israel did 1/10 of what the Palestinian Authority accuse it of doing (and their imagination is quite fecund, and not restrained by any over-scrupulous respect for truth- witness the Jenin “massacre”), it is still, morally, light-years ahead not only of any country in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia, but also of countries such as France when they have been confronted with wars which were not existential.
Alexandra also quoted Charles Moore:
“All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world’s fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is “the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance”, the world of the West. He is busy building his country’s nuclear bomb.”
P.S.
I do not agree with everything Alexandra wrote, and / or more how she chose to word her opinion. However, the lies used by some to increase opposition against (the existence of) Israel, etc. should be read by all.
37 Responses to “What Palestine?”
Imho this razzle dazzle of extremist opinions you compiled here doesn’t advance the discussion at all,Michael.
“All I want to ask my fellow Europeans is this: are you happy to help direct the world’s fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own?”
Of course they are. The French ambassador to the UK declared Israel: “That shitty little country.”
I recall a passage from Dostoyevsky I think, of a Russian folk fable of a winter sleigh being pursued by wolves, and the sleigh’s riders would toss one of their number over the side to slow down the wolves pursuit…the idea being that by delaying to eat their compatriot, the others might escape.
That is the Western European way. Chamberlain tossed Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich. Today, the French are quite willing to toss Israel to the wolves, in the hopes that the wolves of Islam will focus on Israel and not burn or blow up Parisian suburbs or worse, take their riots into the centre of French cities!
Can you imagine Islamic rioters on the Rue de Rivoli? Disrupting fashion shows? Mon dieu….
What is the French for “intifada”?
Marlow(e): I share that fear.
Gray – why is that? I think that it is important for the discussion. We look at this from an interesting perspective, one that might open new ways of looking at the situation…
“Today, the French are quite willing to toss Israel to the wolves, in the hopes that the wolves of Islam will focus on Israel and not burn or blow up Parisian suburbs or worse, take their riots into the centre of French cities!”
Nonsense. The French simply are unwilling to waste time and energy on defending a nation that’s unable to come to resonable terms with its neighbors. And rightly so.
Michael, come on, seriously now. How does it advance the discussion when you’re simply presenting carefully selected quotes that are supporting the idea that palestinians are simply arabs, whithout any right to a homecountry, and should simply get absorbed in the populations of other arab nations? This only feeds your prejudices, but is far from representing a realistic approach.
Gray: “Nonsense. The French simply are unwilling to waste time and energy on defending a nation that’s unable to come to resonable terms with its neighbors. And rightly so.”
Come on, Gray. Clinton at Camp David got extraordinary concessions out of Israel — the best the Palestinaeans are likely to get, short of the eradication of Israel istelf – and these were presented to Arafat.
Who was being unreasonable?
Your comment suggests that you believe the Muslim nations around Israel are fully willing to enter reasonable negotiations.
Where is your proof of this? The neighbors shift the goal posts.
-They demand Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
-Israel withdraws. UN certifies withdrawal from all Lebanese land.
-Hezbollah claims Israel still occupying Lebanese land “Shaba Farms” and uses this as excuse to maintain armed state in a state.
-”Shaba Farms” was actually Syrian land seized at the same time as the Golan (this is certified by UN).
-Hezbollah says it is Lebanese land, and Israel is an occupying anti-Lebanese aggressor.
And Gray claims Israel is unreasonable.
Sounds like absolutely nothing has changed since 8000 BC
Michael – I am ashamed to even read the propaganda you reference. You could subsitute the word Jew for Arab/Palestinian in what was written and, justifiably, everyone would be screaming anti-semetism. It was a hack job pure and simple. By the definition used in the articles, America does not exist either. The nation was built by immigrants from many countries and simply declared itself to be a nation. The Palestinians have even a better case for declaring themselves a nation. I don’t know what your purpose is in generating all these one sided posts – is it to stimulate discussion or is it some sort of anti-arab phobia.
If you are truely a supporter of Israel you must know that in order to survive for millenia, it HAS to come to peace with the Palestinians and arabs. Please, please for the sake of Israel stop inflaming the debate by debasing and deligitimizing the Palestinians and arabs.
So lets see. There never was a Palestinian nation. Palestinians as a people do not exist. There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
Hmm.
jdledell:
Bunch of nonsense. I am not ‘anti-Arab’ at all. I am anti-lie.
Please, please for the sake of Israel stop inflaming the debate by debasing and deligitimizing the Palestinians and arabs.
They are deligitimizing Israel(is). Look at the textbooks. Look at some of the stuff that appears on PA TV. Whom plays that game can suddenly be confronted with some ugly, uncomfortable facts.
Do I believe that the Arabs we call Palestinians have a right of a country of their own? Yes.
Do I believe that we should be aware of some lies produced by Palestinians? Yes.
Should we address those issues? Yes.
Should we confront them with it? Yes.
If we are talking about rights, it is Israel that has the right to exist and we can talk about creating a state called Palestine. Not the other way around.
Gray, the Jewish nation-state Israel is not unreasonable at all. In fact, as Marlow pointed out, Israel has been willing to compromize. To do big consessions.
Arafat, Gray, was playing a game. That’s all he did. The French don’t support Israel because they have other interests in the region.
Michael – This is suppossed to be a moderate site. Presenting one sided positions is not moderate. Of course I advocate pointing out errors on BOTH sides – you on the other hand seem to publish only the Israeli side. What that does is get people like me to try to balance your positions which portrays me, a huge Israeli supporter, as anti-Israel. Instead of inflaming the issue, can you outline your own proposed peace agreement in one of your postings, where you deliniate your proposed geographical boundries. This would force all of us to confront the very real problem of what settlements stay and which ones go, which roads stay and which go, how to settle any boundries which partion Jerusalem, the status of the Jordan Valley, and how to connect Gaza and the West Bank. If you can come up with that, give us your ideas on the Palestinian refugee issue. Coming up with thoughtful ideas on this would be a real service to your readers.
“Clinton at Camp David got extraordinary concessions out of Israel — the best the Palestinaeans are likely to get, short of the eradication of Israel istelf – and these were presented to Arafat.”
The history of uninterrupted Israeli support for illegal settlements in the occupied territories shows that Arafat was right in being sceprtical. If Rabin would have been there, this would have been different. But he was killed by an Israeli rightwinger, and Barack was talking out of his a**. He was trying to eat the cake and keep it. He couldn’t be trusted. To accept his ‘offer’ would have resulted in a fragmented country for the palestinians, and artificial creation that couldn’t have survived. The Israelis themselves didn’t accept this in ’48, why should the palestinians go for such a bad deal?
“In fact, as Marlow pointed out, Israel has been willing to compromize. To do big consessions.”
Do give back only part of occupied territory, after illegally seizing important parts of it, in’t a real concesion. The last Israeli pliticians that made concesions was Rabin. The rest is silence.
I second what ‘jdledell said:’ points out. Serbian Jews and Russian Jews aren’t native to Israel/Palestine, switching her royalness’ Arab hatred with Jew make one an anti-Semite, Mvdg and his ‘godmother’ denie their anti-Arab rants in the guise of Israelis are Westerners, like us, compared to those ‘unclean’ Arabs’. Biden used ‘clean’, Dan Pipes took these thoughts to the extreme and it’s OK to paint Arabs as ‘animals’. Those Arabs are making Western Europe ‘unclean’……..
Those Arabs are out producing us, they have babies like animals
Ni**ers…….Racism by the pro-Arabs and pro-Israel crowd is still racism, even when spun this nice graphics.
Wow,
That was quite a post there Michael. You going to start putting up some Dershowitz quotes next?
But on to the main point of your article, which is (correct me if I’m wrong): The Arabs already control most of the Middle East, so why can’t the Palestinians go live there.
This is just as absurd as asserting that the Jews already dominate New York City, so why don’t they leave Israel and just live there.
You notice that you appear to be a bit anti-Israel as well huh?
The only place Israelis should live is inside Israel’s officially recognized borders as far as I am concerned.
He couldn’t be trusted? How do you know my German friend? Do you know something nobody else knows or is there some kind of prejudice at work here?
Rudi, I can guarantee you that I’m not a racist.
Chris: those Palestinians are Arabs and that is not what I am suggesting at all. I believe in a two-state solution as I have said before.
“The only place Israelis should live is inside Israel’s officially recognized borders as far as I am concerned.”
Not even most people who are sceptical of Israel would go this far, you. uh, extremist!
But that was what that article was suggesting.
Recognized by who/what? What borders are you referencing?
I suppose you would present pro-Israel voices if you were posting to this blog? And if you are such a moderate, why do you have such a one-sided anti-Israel view of the Middle East? Anyone who is objective and moderate would clearly be on the side of Israel. Being anti-Israel shows one lacks moral clarity. As to my own view, the so-called “palestinians” are not deserving of a state, which any truly moderate, objective person can see would be just another terrorist state. If anyone should be given statehood in the region, it ought to be the Kurds.
“He couldn’t be trusted? How do you know my German friend?”
Do you want to deny that the illegal settlements actually were expanded after Oslo? Do you think a prime minister who violates against treaties to be trustworthy?
“Recognized by who/what? What borders are you referencing?”
An important point!
I think what MvdG was trying to point out in the post is that the arguments used by Palestinians and their supporters that Israel has no right to a state (due to not having a national identity in recent history) is no more valid than an argument that the same is true of Palestine. When you see that this argument is not a substantial one against Palestine, you see why the Palestinians shouldn’t use that to criticize the existence of Israel.
MvdG You are just a fanatical fan to the Israel soccer match, jdledell is an active player. Atleast you have some restraint, you don’t call him a Liberal self hating Jew, yet….
That’s a fair point, but is anyone here actually arguing that Israel shouldn’t exist? Do most Palestinians even think that? (Probably more extremism now than 20 years ago I’m sure)
But that’s certainly not my starting point for a debate. I accept that Israel exists and should continue to exist as long as it’s viable. I accept that the Israelis are occupying Palestinian territory. I accept that a Palestinian state created from the current occupied territories would not be viable. So how do we move forward toward a two-state solution that is fair and viable for both sides? How do we end the brutal treatment of the Palestinians? How do we end attacks on Israel from the occupied territories?
“I think what MvdG was trying to point out in the post is that the arguments used by Palestinians and their supporters that Israel has no right to a state (due to not having a national identity in recent history) is no more valid than an argument that the same is true of Palestine.”
Ok, this is a valid point. But, sry, I didn’t get it form Michael’s story. This shows that it’s dangerous to quote other sources without clearly stating what the point is. Sry, Michael, if I jumped to the wrong conclusions.
I think that there are some extremists on both sides, and that any fair solution has to marginalize those extremists. I do tend to think there are more of those extremists on the Palestinian/Arab side, but I do pay attention to those who are critical of Israeli policy and try to examine that evidence with an open mind. If Israelis truly are trying to “put the Palestinians on Indian reservations”, then this is not right and they should be criticized for such policies. I happen to think that some Israelis may have come to that type of thinking because they have felt threatened by Palestinian terrorism ever since the state of Israel was established. But this is really no different than American colonists feeling threatened by the “savages” and treating them immorally as a result of their fear. I honestly don’t know how much the situation in Israel today parallels that time in US history, but I think there’s room to believe that there is some comparison.
What? Palestinians aren’t a separate people from (other) Arabs? That claim is pretty out there both from a societal and genetic standpoint. First of all, every time I’ve read about Middle East attitudes it points out that everyone hates the Palestinians whether it’s talking about Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon or Iraq. A prince of Jordan was on NPR once and I was amazed because he actually admitted that most of the problem was Arab prejudice against Palestinians made it so no one was helping them and Israel was getting unfairly blamed. So the Arabs over there definitely can tell a difference.
Also, there are genetic differences. From wikipedia: “In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that — at least paternally — the various Jewish ethnic divisions and Palestinians, (and in some cases other Levantines) are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs (of Arabia) or non-Jewish Europeans” which I’ve read in other sources as well. Most Palestinians are more closely related to the ancient tribes of Israel than the Bedouin Arabs that make up most of the Middle East (although to be fair there is a significant amount of intermarriage, but “native” Israelis are almost exactly the same as Palestinians).
To be fair, the Palestinian identity as a political movement was started (mostly) as a reaction to Israel. Again from Wikipedia:
then it goes on to explain how most Palestinians didn’t see it this way, when the Ottoman Empire fell and France took over Syria there was the start of a greater movement
Now I personally think that Israel has recently (since the early 90s) been a model nation concerning the circumstances — with a few exceptions like the stupid settlements that are red meat to the ultra-conservatives — and most of the blame is on Palestinians, but to pretend like they have no identity is not true in my (admittedly shallow) understanding.
I am not a moderate on this topic. Gray and others seem to think Israel is the unreasonable one? This absolutely boggles me. The arabs have been calling for the destruction of Israel since its creation, long before they seized any lands illegally. After mulitiple attacks from arab coalitions whose sole stated intent is to annihilate Israel people still think its the Israelies that are unreasonable? Un-fucking believable.
What exactly do the Arabs have to do to appear unreasonable to you people?
Sam The US and USSR both threatened each other with rhetorical destruction, how are Israel and the Arabs any different?
Because the Arabs actually massed soldiers not once, but 3 times to actually carry out those plans. If Israel had lost either in 1948, 1967, or the Yom Kippur war it wouldn’t be here today.
Laura – jdledell is one of those Jews who will join us Liberals in Hell at the Rapture. I will enjoy eternity with jdl before spending it with the likes of you. His relatives in Israel will join us in the Inferno – LOL.
Laura,
Why do you refuse to address me? Afraid that I’ve called you out on numerous occasions? C’mon give me the time of day and I’ll buy you a drink (or put a a couple dollars in my local church’s collection plate in your honor if you’re of that ilk).
CP Maybe you could buy her an axe, help out with the Carrie Nation crowd
.
“Gray and others seem to think Israel is the unreasonable one?”
Actually, I think, Israel is unreasonable, too. An important difference.
“If Israel had lost either in 1948, 1967, or the Yom Kippur war it wouldn’t be here today.”
If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding, maybe the six day war (preemptively started by Israel!) and Yom Kippur (Egyprian/Syrian reaction on the defeat 1967) wouldn’t have been necessary. Fact is, Israel had no interest in avoiding war in 67 because it wanted to conquer Jerusalem. 73 is just a result of this.
Gray,
What in heaven’s name do you mean by “If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding…”? Understanding over what? I’m sorry, but in this post you seem to be going completely over the edge into the blame Israel for everything camp.
“What in heaven’s name do you mean by “If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding…â€?? Understanding over what?”
Yup, I somewhat lost part of the sentence there. It should have been “If Israel would have tried to reach a better understanding with its neighbors”. I know that a peace treaty would have been unlikely before ’67, but there’s exactly no evidence that Israel tried to dampen the tensions in any way. Isn’t this somewhat surprising if the nation’s leaders really thought their countries existance was in jeopardy? Imho this leads to two conclusions: Firstly, Meir et al. were quite confident that Israel was able to defend itself (and actually, 67 proved this) and secondly, there was no interest in reducing the risk because of strategical planning to use the next war as a chance to reconquer Jerusalem.
“I’m sorry, but in this post you seem to be going completely over the edge into the blame Israel for everything camp.”
I hope this post is clearer now. Besides, pls note that I don’t blame Israel for everything, I just pointed out that Israel bears some responsibility for the tensions in the region. Imho even the most enthusiastic Israel supporters can’t simply dismiss this.
“Firstly, Meir et al. were quite confident that Israel was able to defend itself”
Oops, srry, I fumbled with the dates. Meir was elected in ’69. It were Ben Gurion and then Eshkol who were at the helm between 56 and 67, of course.
Israel did nothing to reduce the tension? How about Egypt, Syria and Jordan mobilizing their armies on the border with Israel and publicly calling on public airwaves for Muslims to rise up and obliterate the jew-pigs of Israel? How about asking the arabs for not doing basically everything in their power to start a war.
Jesus christ on a cracker, you give the arabs a pass for the most inflamatory possible behavior and then bugger the Israelies for not excercising the utmost restraint while gambling the fate of their country. Israel is a very very tiny country. In one hour tanks from Egypt and Jordan can meet up in the middle and bisect the country if they had attacked first. Syrian artillery located on the Golan Heights can pound northern Israel with impunity, and it did. There was not one ounce of diplomacy forthcoming from either of the 3 countries allied against Israel.