Palestine

[andrewducker]

The recent announcement on Israel/Palestine has me absolutely infuriated.

_Not_ because the plan has Israel holding onto bits of what they should really be handing back (which bits end up being populated by which people isn't really a huge concern to me and I'm fairly fluid about the concept of nation states at the best of times).

What really, _really_ annoys me is the way that it was announced. Bush stood up there with Sharon and told everyone what they'd agreed. The US is supposed to be brokering a deal between two sides and yet it presents a deal hammered out with one side without any actual reference to the other one.

Israel/Palestine may cover a tiny amount of area but it's become a major matter for the entire Arab world. Much of the anger aimed at the US stems entirely from the way it acts over Israel. By standing up there and saying "Fuck you, we're only actually interested in one side here." they've just pushed many, many more people towards anti-Israel and anti-US and anti-Western groups.

Can someone not give the current US administration a _tiny_ clue that if they treat people like shit those people will get upset?

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

The US is supposed to be brokering a deal between two sides and yet it presents a deal hammered out with one side without any actual reference to the other one.

That's what the US always does, though it's not usually as blatant as it is this time. Deals offered the Palestinians are invariably what the US and Israel have decided they might be allowed to have... which is predictable simply because the US and Israel are the brokers with power. That Bush has not a clue about international diplomacy is not exactly new news.

[andrewducker]

Well, no.

But it's still *^&*%^&$%& annoying.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure, it's annoying. It's just that for me it's a kind of weary annoyance, like hearing that Bush has appointed Negroponte to be the US ambassador to Iraq. It's not good news, it's fundamentally stupid, but we knew Bush was going to make no progress on the task of peace between Israel and Palestine: there are some fairly horrible theories why he may actually prefer for things to go backwards, but I try not to believe them.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Some people do believe we're in "the final days". Why shouldn't one of those people be the President of the USA?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

1. Because it scares me too much.
2. Because there is no real reason to believe that George W. Bush really is a Christian of any kind, let alone that particularly dedicated kind: Bush lies a lot, especially about stuff that will win him votes.

[nickys.livejournal.com]

> Can someone not give the current US administration a _tiny_ clue that if they treat people like shit those people will get upset?

I did discuss this with some US citizens who had posted anti-Muslim abuse on a medieval history newsgroup, and, as I recall it, their argument was:
a) ... terrorists are bad
b) ... anyone who doesn't agree with the US government is a terrorist

[gutman.livejournal.com]

What do YOU propose?
The Palestinian leadership aren't interested in peace, they are only interested in the total destruction of Israel.
During the time Barak was the Israeli prime minister, Israel offered the palestinian 95% of the occupied area.
Arafat kept making more and more demands and when he noticed he has no alternative left but to sign a treaty he started the bloodshed that continues until today.
If you think that if the Israeli government decides to retreat from all the occupied areas the violence and blood shed will stop then you are being naive.
The Palestinians will only get encouragement and realize that terror works. Creating a physical barrier between the two people is maybe the only option left.
Israel have the power and ability to bring total defeat to the palestinian authority, if they had only did what the Russian did in Chechnya or what U.S.A did in Afghanistan, the war would have been ended by now.
I'm not saying this had been the right thing to do but the fact that Israel chose not to make it the better country and U.S government and Europe a bunch of hypocrites.

[akicif.livejournal.com]

Again with the same old myths. Back in the early seventies, Northern Ireland was a complete mess. A faction of the powers-that-be wanted to apply an "Israeli-style solution" - even down to walling off the border with Eire. Luckily, this didn't happen. Thirty years on, Israel/Palestine are still festering away and the Northern Ireland problem is well on the way to being solved (unlike, say for example, Afghanistan and Chechnya - which are still bubbling cauldrons of civil war).

This sort of implies that negotiation can work in places where claiming massive military victories (mostly over civilians) doesn't.

The Solution?

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

Don't get me started on the ins and outs of tribal politics (I thing I was never too clear on myself as years ago I had to admit that I not only don't think like the other monkeys but that I can't think like them either). But here's how I see things.
1/ This is like Ireland and certain areas of Europe, Africa and Asia: tribal wars over thousands of years with only names, weapons and slogans changing. If you don't believe me study a bit of Celtic mythology esp. concerning the REd Branch Warriors. Even the Roman Empire couldn't solve the Middle East problem and their methods included crucifiction and paid informers. (NOTE: This isn't a religious thing (for once) but an historical fact. Pilate was even recalled to Rome for his brutality in dealing with local politics at one point.)
2/The only way out of this (and I include ANY such situation) is to lay off the armaments and start education and medical programmes to knock out the firebrands. It's hard to gain converts with a free mind, full belly and good health. Hell, people might even start to see sense for once.
3/Jack Black proposed, in an interview for the great Bizarre Magazine, that the only solution he could see was as follows: Take all the relics, people and sites from Isreal and swap them with Hawaii. That way those Israelies who want to pick a fight will have todo so with Uncle Sam and the Palestinians will have some nice, relaxed Polynesians as neighbours. I dunno, it's a possibility.
4/ WE ALL INVADE TOGETHER. Seriously. We, as the United Nations or just nations of the world who have had it up to here with the lot of 'em (Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu or whatever) using their ideoligies to perpetrate tribal wars that drag the rest of us in. We throw out the activists and stick 'em all on a barren rock someplace (and believe me there's plenty of those off the coast of Scotland, I can tell you), and leave 'em there. If they want to act like warring chimps then the may do so without disturbing the rest of us. Meanwhile we carry on trying to get off this planet and evolve/survive as a species. Who knows? The murdering scum of all factions might start acting like animals and negotiate with dignity. Or act like humans and wipe each other out. Either way their actions show they are unworthy of Society (i.e. respect/tolernce for others, arguing without violence etc) so we withdraw from them.
5/ Read Bob Heinlein and build "Coventry". Like 4 but more humane.
Five points. A good number. But please recall the words of my alter ego the Discordian philosopher Socrates of Bran: "War never settles who's right- only who's left." Just me as you will, I have already judged myself and found me wanting.

Re: The Solution?

[terminalmalaise.livejournal.com]

Take all the relics, people and sites from Isreal and swap them with Hawaii. That way those Israelies who want to pick a fight will have todo so with Uncle Sam and the Palestinians will have some nice, relaxed Polynesians as neighbours.

Tangent, but something interesting I came across yesterday:

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/

I had no idea there was a movement for Hawaiin sovereignty. Luckily it's a non-violent one.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of sympathy with the Palestinian cause, but...
1. Arafat is never gonna deliver a peace deal. He doesn't have enough control to deliver on his own agreements (this is being non-cynical), but he does have enough control to make him the only show in town.
2. Israel can't hang around until he dies to take some action - he may last a long time yet and his replacement may be no better.
3. This was a unilateral withdrawal, not an agreement - the Palestinians haven't had to give anything up for this so they have all the chips they had before
4. There is no way that Sharon could survive politically withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank in one go. Starting off with 7000 settlers will perhaps put in context what hoops have to be jumped through in order to agree any future pull-outs.
5. As this isn't dependent upon any Palestinian action or cease-fire, it stands more chance of happening despite the targeted attempts of Hamas (etc) to scupper it - as they have done before.

The problem with this withdrawal is, I think mainly symbolic in that it's agreed by Sharon and Bush. But when you step back and ask what the impact is on the Palestinians, I don't see that much.

[andrewducker]

A unilateral withdrawal is a good thing, certainly. But it hasn't been presented as that. It's not been put forward as "Look what we're doing, and we hope you'll take this as a good thing and do good things yourself." It's been put forward as "This is the final agreed solution, which we're not bothering to ask your opinion on."

As I said - the result isn't what I'm worried about - it's the way it's been put across.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

I think it's been put across that way by Sharon so that he can survive doing it. Think of it like the Good Friday Agreement. Tell everybody what they want to hear so we can keep them all on board.
During the press conference Bush had with Blair, he quite specifically said this wasn't a final agreement.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

That would be almost exactly unlike the good friday agreement - The Uk didn't sit down with Paisley and then tell the IRA what they were going to get. Which is why GF is mostly working and the Sharon/Bush deal won't.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

Nobody has told the Palestinians what they are going to get!
It was a unilateral withdrawal.
The Palestinians have given up nothing and nothing has been taken away from them.

The analogy with NI is in relation to the spin.

[andrewducker]

It has long seemed inevitable that a lasting peace would allow Israelis to keep some of the large West Bank settlements contiguous to Jerusalem and would offer, at most, a very limited right of return for the Palestinians whose families fled at the dawn of a Jewish state. But by accepting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's terms absent any negotiation between the parties, M. Bush is essentially supporting Israel's right to impose a settlement of its choice on the Palestinians.

It wasn't presented as a "We're doing this, we hope you like it." but as a "These are our terms."

Clearly taken aback by the fury provoked by the change, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, embarked on a series of media appearances and telephone calls to try to convince the administration's many critics that President George Bush's support for Jewish settlement building in the West Bank would not emascu late an eventual Palestinian state. He also defended the president's stand against the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes in what is now Israel.

Officials said Mr Powell spoke to Jordanian, Egyptian and Palestinian leaders as well as the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, arguing that the White House should be lauded for backing Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan.

and


That response was echoed by the Arab League yesterday, which accused the US of reneging on its role of mediator. "We expect the United States to play honest broker. The United States has adopted Israel's position," said Hesham Youssef, spokesman for the league's secretary general.

In France, President Jacques Chirac said Mr Bush had set an "unfortunate and dangerous precedent", and flatly rejected any unilateral changes to the borders of Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The Irish foreign minister, Brian Cowen, adopted a similar stance. "The EU will not recognise any change to the pre-1967 borders other than those arrived at by agreement between the parties."

German and Russian reaction was more muted, welcoming the withdrawal from Gaza while calling for a negotiated final settlement.

From Ramallah, the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, or Abu Ala, proposed an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the other sponsors of Mr Bush's erstwhile road map: the EU, Russia, and the UN.

From the ruins of his headquarters, the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, said defiantly: "Israel will not achieve security through occupation, arrogance and assassinating our leaders."

Nobody at all seems to be taking this as a peace gesture, everyone is taking it as a 'final agreement' made by only one side.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

Lots of quotes about people reading a 'final agreement' into this withdrawal. There is no signed paper re-stating any boundaries. Bush has gone on record saying that he is not supporting any final agreement at this point.

Everyone is up in arms about inference. Stuff the inference. No agreement is signed, so the Palestinians haven't actually lost anything. Sharon won't get even this through the Knesset unless he lays it on thick in the short term. So for now, let him. It's domestic political reality for Israel.

The final agreement will have to be something very different from this stage because the Palestinians will have to be party to it. I suspect a lot of the hollering is about people making sure that this is still understood by all sides. I think it is, but if the spin in Israel focuses on this as being just a first step, Sharon won't get anywhere with it domestically.

What Sharon is doing is in the right direction - pulling settlements out of occupied land. We may all be unhappy with the amount, but at least it is in the right direction.

I wouldn't be surprised if the peace process stalls again at the next stage, but once those settlements are gone, they're gone. With a fair wind Arafat and Sharon will both be gone in a few years too. Maybe then, further down the line, a final settlement might be agreed.

One step at a time.

[webmacher.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

Can someone not give the current US administration a _tiny_ clue that if they treat people like shit those people will get upset?

Working on it. Perhaps in November, when we boot these scoundrels' butts out of the White House. ;-)