Abbas threatens terrorism as diplomatic leverage
Hopes that he would be better than Arafat were misplaced, it seems.
Comments
Yeah, what are those Palestinians thinking, supporting someone who doesn't like every single thing the Israelis do?
Berard
In the interest of doing something other than one-liners, I will also ask why you demonize the Palestinians more than the Israelis, considering both of them have thrown up substantial roadblocks to making peace in the region, especially considering that the Israelis, with their massive military, healthy economy, status as the darling of the United States (and the inconvenient wee fact that they started it), are in a much better position to do something about the situation then the group they've oppressed and improvrished for so long?
Yeah, what are those Palestinians thinking, supporting someone who doesn't like every single thing the Israelis do?It's one thing to not support it, it's another thing to use the threat of terrorism as your means of negotiation. Terrorism should not be a part of one's diplomatic toolbox, period.
In the interest of doing something other than one-liners, I will also ask why you demonize the Palestinians more than the Israelis, considering both of them have thrown up substantial roadblocks to making peace in the region, especially considering that the Israelis, with their massive military, healthy economy, status as the darling of the United States (and the inconvenient wee fact that they started it), are in a much better position to do something about the situation then the group they've oppressed and improvrished for so long?I dispute your premise. Israel's ultimate goal has always been to live side by side with the Arabs in Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the surrounding countries as well. The goal of Palestinian terrorism (and those Palestinians who support it) has always been to rid the area of Jews completely.
Israel's actions have accordingly been aimed at the objective of mutual peace. All of their controversial actions have been to either: A) erect settlements in land that should be "judenrein", B) to fight back against terrorists (yes, killing civilians in the process, but that happens in war, and Israel is no worse than any other country in a war), or C) to erect inconveniences such as the checkpoints and the wall, to protect themselves.
The actions of Palestinian terrorists, on the other hand, have no legitimate goal in mind. It's simply to kill innocent people. You never see Israel going out of its way to actually target any innocent people. They are doing their best to defend themselves, and accepting that in the real world that involves fighting back.
I think your comment also contains an oft-repeated fallacy: that the party with the most money, wealth, or power is always in the wrong, when there is a conflict. If a domestic criminal in the U.S. takes some people hostage, and the police stage a rescue operation that results in some innocent deaths, do you blame the police for those deaths simply because they are more powerful and wealthy than the criminal? The fact of the matter is, bad people can create bad situations even if the good people are more powerful, so blaming everything that's wrong with the world on those with more power/wealth is misguided.
You say Israel is in a better position to fix the problem. What could Israel do? Ultimately, if Palestinian terrorism stopped, all of the inconveniences Palestinians suffer as a result of Israel's self-defense would go away. Israel cannot make choices for the terrorists. They can only choose what they do given the reality of terrorism.
By contrast, Mahmoud Abbas is in a position to, if not eliminate terrorism single-handedly, at least contribute to its diminishment, by for example not threatening its very use if Israel does not do what he wants. Also, you cannot pretend that the Palestinian culture plays no role in how widespread the usage of terrorism is. Certainly there are varying degrees of culpability, and a suicide bomber and those who directly sponsored him bear the lion's share of that culpability. But you must also place some of the blame on those who teach their children that all Jews are dogs and that killing civilians on buses and in discos will make you a hero. That belief is unfortunately quite prevalent in Palestinian culture, and there simply won't be peace until Palestinians want to live side-by-side with Jews, like the Jews have been willing to do for over half a century.
Another way to come at this is is by asking what choices you would make in the shoes of the Israelis, vs. the shoes of the Palestinians?
Say you're an Israeli. For decades, the surrounding countries, as well as most of the Palestinians, have refused to accept your very existence. You personally know of others — perhaps even a friend or family member — who have been killed by suicide bombers. Do you fight back? Do you kill the terrorist leaders, even if that means innocent people near them might die? Do you build a wall to stop suicide bombmers from coming?
Now say you're a Palestinian. You have to bear a checkpoint twice a day, on your way to work. Your friends and family are on the other side of the wall, making it impossible to see them on a regular basis. You personally know of others who have had their house demolished. Some people have even been killed when they were at a location that Israel thought contained terrorists. Do you strap on a bomb belt, seek out a bus full of Jewish children, and blow it up?
If you would make the same choice as the Israelis, but not the same choice as the Palestinian terrorist, then how can you condemn both?
Do you have any doubt that, if Palestinian terrorism ceased, the Israeli policies you dislike would cease as well?
Also, isn't the converse false? If Israel ceased the policies you dislike, wouldn't Palestinian terrorism be even more prevalent? Hasn't the wall made Israel safer from terrorism? Doesn't killing your enemy prevent them from killing you?
Do you even listen to yourself? "The Israelis wanted to live side by side in peace with the Palestinians..." So they build a wall to segregate themselves? So they don't allow the refugees to return to the land they stole? What was that you said about judenrein?
The Israelis invaded the area and kicked out the Palestinians. This is a historical fact. The people who deny this always rather remind me of holocaust deniers in their tone. Every time the Israelis gobbled up more land, they promised that was the end (also a fun Third Reich comparison), but it never is. They wanted the West Bank from the beginning, and were going to do what was necesary to take it. They're going to keep going for more until they're stopped. (FYI I don't advocate an end to Israel, but I do advocate an end to it's warmongering). The Israelis don't want to live side-by-side with the Palestinians. This is a lie. The Israelis want to live either above them, or without them.
The Israelis drove the Palestinians out of their homes, and then once they were assured they would have at least a truncated part of their former domain for their own, the Israelis stomped in and occupied it, too- does it really surprise you that the kids are raised to want to get their own back?
The Zionists reaped what they sowed, and have been sowing for the better part of a century. If they didn't want the tradgedy of suicide bombers, they should not have inflicted as much death and destruction on the locals. The reason the Israelis are in a better position to make peace in the region isn't solely because they're wealthier, it's because they started it. If the Israelis would discontinue their invasions and occupations of Arab land, both official and unofficial, then maybe we can get some place.
Berard
You seem to be contradicting yourself, David. You preach Israel's desire to "live side-by-side with the Arabs in Israel," yet praise the construction of a isolationist wall. Could you please explain and justify the reconciliation of these two points of contention?
I think your argument also contains an oft-repeated fallacy: that the party with the most money, wealth, or power is always in the wrong, when there is a conflict.
Please direct me to the section of Peter's argument in which he stated that.
"Israel and U.S. mediators boycotted Arafat as an alleged mastermind of bloodshed but have sized up Abbas as someone they could deal with because he has branded violence a mistake."
--
"Heavy security was draped around Abbas because of feared threats from militants opposed to peacemaking. However, local members of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed group in the mainstream Fatah faction that nominated Abbas for president, greeted Abbas and said they would vote for him."
These don't sound like obstacles to peace, muchacho; seems to me like Abbas just isn't willing to make concessions as egregious as allowing a giant bloody segregational wall.
Do you kill terrorist leaders, even if it means innocent people near them might die? Do you build a wall to stop suicide bombers from coming?
It's one thing to capture and eliminate terrorists (if such operations are conducted in the proper manner), but it's quite another to build a discriminatory wall.
Doesn't killing your enemy prevent them from killing you?
In this case, I'd say killing your enemy spawns about five more in his place, which is why this prolonged altercation can't be solved with military might or violence alone. (That goes for the Palestinian cause, too.) Both sides must be willing to negoatiate, and now that Arafat is gone, we're really waiting primarily on Israel.
You (Kelli) wrote:
You seem to be contradicting yourself, David. You preach Israel's desire to "live side-by-side with the Arabs in Israel," yet praise the construction of a isolationist wall. Could you please explain and justify the reconciliation of these two points of contention?There's no contradiction. Israel wants to live side-by-side, but they they don't want to commit suicide. If the Palestinian society is sick enough that it consistently produces terrorists, Israel chooses to defend itself in the meantime. But its ultimate goal is a world in which both Arabs and Jews can live peacefully in the Middle East. This is in contrast with the goal of Palestinian terrorists who simply want to eliminate the Jews. Defending yourself from an aggressive culture is not inconsistent with a desire to see the day when that culture ceases to be your enemy.
Quoth Peter:I think your argument also contains an oft-repeated fallacy: that the party with the most money, wealth, or power is always in the wrong, when there is a conflict.Please direct me to the section of Peter's argument in which he stated that.
I will also ask why you demonize the Palestinians more than the Israelis ... especially considering that the Israelis, with their massive military, healthy economy, status as the darling of the United States (and the inconvenient wee fact that they started it), are in a much better position to do something about the situation then the [Palestinians]Back to your comment:
Abbas may in fact be quite better than some of the other alternatives, and might even be better than Arafat. My post was somewhat simplified, and I didn't mean Abbas wouldn't be better than Arafat at all. That remains to be seen. I meant he wouldn't be substantially better than Arafat. I actually had quite a bit of hope for him at first, since he resigned as Prime Minister in protest a year and a half ago when Arafat wouldn't give him any real powers. I still remain open to the possibility that my cynicism will be proven wrong, and I'll be very glad if it is."Israel and U.S. mediators boycotted Arafat as an alleged mastermind of bloodshed but have sized up Abbas as someone they could deal with because he has branded violence a mistake."These don't sound like obstacles to peace, muchacho; seems to me like Abbas just isn't willing to make concessions as egregious as allowing a giant bloody segregational wall.
--
"Heavy security was draped around Abbas because of feared threats from militants opposed to peacemaking. However, local members of the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed group in the mainstream Fatah faction that nominated Abbas for president, greeted Abbas and said they would vote for him."
In any event, he's entitled to his opinion on the wall. He's entitled to try to persuade Israel not to build it. But do you really believe there's any circumstance that justifies the murder of innocent children in buses and discos? Because that's what Abbas was threatening to do, and that's what my post was complaining about.
So if you have a choice between perpetual violence where lots of people on both sides die, and effectively building a bubble to protect your country, you'd choose the perpetual violence?Do you kill terrorist leaders, even if it means innocent people near them might die? Do you build a wall to stop suicide bombers from coming?It's one thing to capture and eliminate terrorists (if such operations are conducted in the proper manner), but it's quite another to build a discriminatory wall.
Actually, Sharon's policies over the past few years have been very effective at decreasing the amount of terrorism Israel suffers, while at the same time disengaging from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. See Israel's unexpected victory over terrorism. Many would argue that negotiating with terrorists is perceived as a reward for the act of terrorism — and therefore an incentive for future terrorism. Do you really believe the "Palestinian cause" would be given such international attention if not for the routine murder of Israeli civilians?Doesn't killing your enemy prevent them from killing you?In this case, I'd say killing your enemy spawns about five more in his place, which is why this prolonged altercation can't be solved with military might or violence alone. (That goes for the Palestinian cause, too.)
Both sides must be willing to negoatiate, and now that Arafat is gone, we're really waiting primarily on Israel.Israel has been quite consistent in its willingness to negotiate with Mahmoud Abbas.
Kelli raised some of the same points you raised, Peter, so I'll just respond directly to this:
The Israelis invaded the area and kicked out the Palestinians. This is a historical fact. The people who deny this always rather remind me of holocaust deniers in their tone.The Palestinian refugees were created as a result of the war the neighboring Arab governments started to destroy the state of Israel. Israel never forced them out of their homes.
Every time the Israelis gobbled up more land, they promised that was the end (also a fun Third Reich comparison), but it never is. They wanted the West Bank from the beginning, and were going to do what was necesary to take it. They're going to keep going for more until they're stopped.To draw an analogy between land gained via war of imperial conquest and genocide, to land gained via wars of survival seems quite absurd, to me.
(FYI I don't advocate an end to Israel, but I do advocate an end to it's warmongering).You consistently refer to actions zionists supposedly took before Israel even existed as some evidence that the Jews "started it" and therefore are "reaping what they sowed". That seems to contradict a desire to change Israel's current policies based on the current situation, to achieve a just outcome for all parties involved.
The Israelis don't want to live side-by-side with the Palestinians. This is a lie. The Israelis want to live either above them, or without them.If it's a lie, then it's a massive conspiracy perpetrated by virtually all Israelis to not allow their true motives to become known in any of their literature or media or communications. A conspiracy, by the way, that is much more professionally executed than their Nazi predecessors, who clearly conveyed their intentions.
<<If it's a lie, then it's a massive conspiracy perpetrated by virtually all Israelis to not allow their true motives to become known in any of their literature or media or communications. A conspiracy, by the way, that is much more professionally executed than their Nazi predecessors, who clearly conveyed their intentions. >>
There you go, playing the "Berard's a nut" card. Read Ben-Gurion's diaries. Or the writings of a lot of the Zionist leaders. They all make it clear they wanted the West Bank and Jerusalem from the very beginning. And actions (the fact that Israel is, you know, occupying these areas) speak louder than words. The only way the Israelis want to live alongside the Arabs is if the Arabs are underneath them, doing their scut work. Why do you think they want to deny the right of return? To preserve their Jewish state.
<<The Palestinian refugees were created as a result of the war the neighboring Arab governments started to destroy the state of Israel. Israel never forced them out of their homes.>>
There was a long guerilla war before the state was founded. The Irgun- terrorists in any man's book, except the most yellow-dog Zionists- slaughtered entire villages and drove Palestinians off to take their land. This is historical fact.
<<You consistently refer to actions zionists supposedly took before Israel even existed as some evidence that the Jews "started it" and therefore are "reaping what they sowed". That seems to contradict a desire to change Israel's current policies based on the current situation, to achieve a just outcome for all parties involved.>>
The Zionist revolutionaries became the government of Israel. I don't think it's unreasonable to equate the two. And who's looking for a "just outcome for all parties involved"?
<<To draw an analogy between land gained via war of imperial conquest and genocide, to land gained via wars of survival seems quite absurd, to me.>>
If it was purely war for survival, why did they make it into a land grab? The Suez campaign in the fifties also shows that Israel has long had imperial ambitions throughout the Middle East.
Berard
Why not?
You wrote:
"The Israelis wanted to live side by side in peace with the Palestinians..." So they build a wall to segregate themselves?
Why do you imply that wanting to live side-by-side in peace with other people is inconsitent with erecting a barrier to prevent them from attacking you?
Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
Do you think wanting to live in peace near other people requires pretending that they aren't dangerous, and refusing to protect yourself?
Because they never wanted to live in peace with them in any equitable way. Because they came over and invaded. The fact I have to point this out to you says something, but Dyffd is constantly scolding me about my conduct here, so I won't discuss the possibilities of what that may be.
Berard
Ok, so since you haven't made an argument that explains why erecting a barrier is inconsistent with wanting to live in peace with dangerous neighbors, I'll conclude that you don't have one; rather than that you have psychic insights into the true motivations of Israelis.
Your comparison was based on false assumptions- that the Israelis and Palestinians are neighbors, like me and the Nigerian family next door. Thing is, we didn't force anyone out of our house at gunpoint and then illegally occupy the Nigerian's house, and then build a big ol' fence right through their property preventing the man of the house from going to work and a few other family members from seeing each other, etc. Hence, "no comparison". Now, seeing as you got all snarky with me I'm going to ignore the risk of a Dyffd-scolding and say that the fact that I need to explain all this implies either stupidity (you didn't know the facts) or intellectual dishonesty (you knew but wanted to "win" the argument).
Which is it?
Berard
It's that you either don't know the facts, or how to interpret them.
Very few current Israelis are responsible for the losses of current Palestinians of their rightful homes. Most of Israel's land was legitimately purchased, and the rest was acquired via victories in wars for survival. Most of the Palestinians who left did so because they chose the side of the Arab armies who urged them to leave to facilitate the annihilation of the jews. Fortunately (in my opinon, although perhaps not yours), those armies lost and borders changed (as they often do after wars). I think that the vast majorities of Israelies and Palestinians who are involved in the current conflict were not involved in or responsible for any of those decisions.
It seems that the story you want to believe, and the conclusions you want to draw from it, would prevent the people who live in Israel now from having any moral and safe way to continue to live there.
In any case, the only realistic path toward future peace requires the acceptance of Israel and its right to exist within secure borders. Apparently you are unwilling to do this; which I think leaves you incapable of adding anything productive to this discussion.
Given that, and the fact that I have no strong interest in the spetacle of abnormal psychology, I'll stop my side of this discussion now.
Nope, I'm all for Israel existing. But I think the only way it can exist is to solve it's current problems, and the only way to do that is to look it straight in the face and not whitewash matters. You talk about "current" Israelis but that's irrellevant to the problem, the immediate problem goes back to the forties when, yes Virginia, the Zionist terrorists did chase large amounts of Palestinians off their land. It's a bit like our ancestors (ok, my ancestors were still in Ireland at the time, but you get what I'm saying) killed off the Indians and drove them away and then made some kind of legal document legitimating it.
Now, in an attempt to duck their responsibility and still grab as much of they can of anywhere available, the Israelis thrown up a fence around it (and let's also not forget they're not doing much about the settlers, and they still have water rights), and every now and again throwing around the word "Palestinian state"- though of course their plans for such a state involve still holding on to strategic bits of it to the extent that there would be no contiguity whatsoever, and they would still control the water supply, etc. etc. When the Palestinian leaders indicate that they can't really accept such a deal (they'd probably get shot if they did), and wouldn't anyway, then of course it's them that are causing the problems. In this way, just as much as with us supporting them financially and with arms sales, the Israelis benefit from being the US' darlings- they're typically presented as being the reasonable ones in negotiations, and the ridiculous terms they press for aren't usually covered. You have to, you know, read something that might disagree with you to figure out what's going on, and the Lord knows most Americans don't like doing that.
Berard
Berard said:
>You talk about "current" Israelis but that's irrelevant to the problem, the immediate problem goes back to the forties
No, the immediate problem is...the immediate problem. It's not usually necessary to trace a problem situation back to historical roots in order to fix it.
However, it seems lies are being told about history in order to instill hatred and *block* attempts to solve the problem.
Here's a different version of the refugee story:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16457
So the Arabs told the Palestinians to leave. How is a foriegn ruler TELLING you something a better motivator than foriegners (Israelis) SHOOTING at you? So the Israelis didn't get all the Arabs, and kept some around to do their scut work- it wasn't for lack of trying.
Berard
berard, i think youre missing the core issue here. I found a site which succinctly captures the spirit of the argument counter to yours. Please take a look and god bless
http://www.idrewthis.org/2004/geopolitical.html
