First, let me disclose my biases. I think there is room for one Jewish state (Israel) in the middle east amongst the 22 Arab states. I also think there should be a 23rd Arab (Palestinian) state. (I also think there should be a Kurdish state, but we'll leave that for another thread).
My support for the existence of Israel has nothing to do with the bible. I do not give a rat's ass what is written in the bible, tora or qur'an or what god or allah supposedly promised to whomever. I am an atheist (apparently so was ben gurion but I don't know.) I support the right of all peoples, as they define themselves, to self determination as stated in the universal declaration of human rights.
I strongly disagree that Israel is more to blame than the Arab States or leaders. But I understand why you may think so. More on that later.There is a long and messy history that precedes these statements, one that certainly can find fault in the leadership of both sides, but to assume the sides in this issue are deserving of equal portions of responsibility and blame is to oversimplify, and ignore the many little publicized and quickly forgotten facts of the matter. I think we've all had enough of dates, times, places, and numbers in this thread so far, so it is back to the "why."
Your concluding sentence, in bold, is dead on. We can debate the part about ensuring Arab marginalization (there are reams of books refuting that too) but i won't quibble. There is some validity to that notion.Long before Israel was in existence, or even a thought on the horizon, the Arab population on this region was being persecuted, exploited, and marginalized by colonial nations, mainly Great Britain, and of course the Turks, Germans, and later the Americans. This area is a vitally important one now, as it has been for several thousand years. It has been the stated and subscribed policy of the above listed nations to ensure Arab and Islamic marginalization (there are reams of books detailing these policies), and the very creation of these States, their borders, and the division of people caused by these creations has left a brutal hangover within these populations.
Yup, pretty much.When the British drew the lines in the sand, they did so in concert with other stake holders, none of them Arab or Islamic. They did so to ensure rights to resources ranging from oil in Iran and Iraq, to the Suez Canal which has its own inauspicious history. Again, you can read as much as you wish on the topic, but suffice it to say, none of it was for the benefit of the local populations.
I am sure you are right. I defer to your first-hand knowledge and experience.I have been fortunate enough to travel, live, and work in a number of nations whose history is a colonial one. In many of these places it is still a prominent feature of the national definition, and they struggle to emerge from this shadow to this day. Some have been more successful than others, and you can look at examples from India to the Congo, Jamaica to Jerusalem and its surrounding area.
We agree on that.To state that "leadership" is the problem is only partially accurate, as there are some very intentional, and very deep rooted reasons why the "leadership" is the problem. Many of those issues can be traced back directly to Western European and American involvement - and that, all before Israel came into existence.
AgreeAs we are finding out rather bluntly, Democracy and economic systems cannot be imposed, installed, or created overnight. Again, Afghanistan is a wonderful example of this failure in policy, as each of these systems is organic in nature, and cannot be exported. So, is it any wonder the Palestinians have issues with Governance? Of course not.
The Oslo accords had some serious flaws (namely no curb on Jewish settlement activity) and Israel used this flaw to disadvantage the peace process. Although they kept to the letter of the agreement they violated the spirit. But the Palestinian leadership's (again, its not about the people) behaviour was more appalling. The entire basis of the accord was that Israel recognize the PLO and begin withdrawing from Palestinian territories while Arafat agreed to recognize Israel and agree to settle all disputes through negotiation, not violence. I don't wish to list off a litany of his wrongdoings to Israeli civilians and to his own people, you can pm me if you want. Suffice it to say that the Palestinian leadership did not keep that part of the bargain. (and I am being kind).Couple that with the fact that Israel's behavior in this so-called "peace process" has been nothing short of appalling since the beginning, and you have some very polarized, very inexperienced (bureaucratically), and very angry people.
I understand the Palestinian's frustration. But the culpability flow chart is extensive. I know you read sources that say it is all Israel's fault. I read them too. There are also lots of well written books and articles that make the case that the opposite is true. So what. I can blurt out both sides' propaganda but I am sick of it. There are some voices of moderation out there but they are drowned out during a crisis like we are seeing this week.Everything from the language used in these peace settlements, to the press reporting of them, to the flagrant violation of UN resolutions and international law by Israel, has lead the Palestinians to completely and utterly disbelieve anything that comes from the mouths of American, British, or Israeli politicians. The oppressive occupation of a people for decades now leaves a mark. That mark may as you say, be visible as irrational behavior, faulty leadership, so-called "extremism" (not even sure what that word is supposed to mean anymore), or violence, but you have to take it in context. The suffering, oppression, and misrepresentation has gone on for so long now, it's a generational mindset.
Arafat's "best intentions." For who? the Palestinian people? no. The Israelis? not so much. Yes he was rendered ineffective by Israel and the U.S. at the very end of his life, but Clinton had earlier tried to elevate him from a "terrorist" to a statesman but let's just say that didn't work out. (read about Yasir and Bill's telephone conversation just before Clinton left office in Jan 2001).Arafat started out with the best intentions, but he was lead down the path by the Americans and the Israeli leadership so many times, then left standing at the alter with nothing to show for it. Of course he was ineffective in the later years, we ensured he was. We ensured he was a destabilizing figure among the Palestinians themselves - that allowed continued Israeli occupation and colonization through "settlements," some of which have subsequently been removed as you said.
It has been said by someone much smarter than I that we hoped Arafat would turn into Nelson Mandela, but he ended up like Robert Mugabe.
Here's a bit of trivia: What world leader was a guest at the White House the most during the Clinton administration? Rabin? Blair? Chretien, Yeltsin? Nope. Yasir Arafat. So much for the argument that he wasn't given enough respect by the Americans.
I will continue my answer to you tomorrow STL but for now let me end with a few thoughts on this theme.
- In 1973, Anwar Sadat launced a war against Israel to regain the Sinai. His war failed.
- In 1978 he came to Israel with a message of peace. This worked. Israel returned every inch of the Sinai to Egypt for a peace treaty. Peaceful gestures are more effective than war when it comes to the Israelis.
- As I have staed before, Israel is not blameless. Far from it. But for the most part, their transgressions were committed in defence of their existence. (no excuse). The many transgressions by the Arab states, for the most part, occurred as they were trying to destroy the Jewish state.
-The war aims of both sides 48, 67 and to a lesser extent 73 were clear. The Arab states' aim was to destroy Israel. Israel's aim was to keep from being destroyed. (In 1956 Israel was wrong but that's a real good example of Western Powers [read Britain and France] manipulating a situation for their self-interest.)
- The Palestinians have been the one to pay the price for the war mongering of the Arab states. They launched a war in 48 that exacerbated (not caused but certainly exacerbated) the refugee problem. They also lost territory at the expense of Palestine. The war launched against Israel in 67 to drive the Jews into the sea (I know Israel fired the first shot but that is irrelevant) made the situation worse for the Palestinians.
It is often said that the Palestinian problem is the cause of the ongoing middle east war against Israel. I would argue that they are not the cause but the effect. They became refugees - to a considerable extent - because of the war launched by six Arab armies in 48 and were occupied following the Arab States' failed attempt to destroy Israel in 67.
I hope some day there will be peaceful coexistence between an independent Palestine next to Israel and with the remaining Arab countries. I am not by nature an optimist but, you never know.
Just imagine how much better off all peoples, especially the Palestinians, would be if the incessant wars and other campaigns to rid the middle east of its tiny Jewish presence would finally end.
Happy new year to all. STL, I'll get back to the rest of this in a day or two.
