In 1999 I found this chronology of key events on Indiana University's History Department website. It was probably written by a graduate student there, and I used to post it on the Yahoo message boards related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. For many years I was a Yahoo message board addict - I called myself 'darkmansixtynine' (because I am a dark man and I was born in 1969).
1897
First Zionist congress meets in Switzerland and issues Basel Program on colonization of Palestine.
1913
First Arab nationalist congress meets in Paris.
1915-16
Husayn-McMahon correspondence--between Sharif Husayn of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt. Arabs understand it as ensuring postwar independence and unity of the Arab provinces (including Palestine) of the Ottoman Empire.
1916
Sykes-Picot agreement secretly divides the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire between Britain and France.
1917 (Nov.)
Balfour Declaration: Britain pledges support for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
(Dec.)
Ottoman forces in Jerusalem surrender to Allied forces under General Sir Edmund Allenby.
1918
British troops under General Allenby occupy the whole of Palestine.
1919
First Palestine national congress meets in Jerusalem. It rejects the Balfour Declaration and demands independence for Palestine.
1920
Mandate system approved at San Remo Conference; the Palestine mandate is assigned to Britain without the consent of Palestinians.
Anti-Zionist riots in Jerusalem.
Sir Herbert Samuel, first British High Commissioner for Palestine, arrives in Jerusalem.
1921
Anti-Zionist riots in Jaffa; scores of Jews are killed or wounded.
1922
First British census of Palestine: 78% Muslim; 11% Jewish; 10% Christian.
1929
Riots in Jerusalem; 133 Jews and 116 Palestinians killed, by the British military.
1930
British White Paper on policy in Palestine. It causes an outcry among Zionists because it calls for restrictions on Jewish immigration into Palestine.
1931
Letter from Ramsay MacDonald, the British Prime Minister, to Zionist leader Chaim Weizman reaffirms Britain’s commitment to the National Home policy. This was dubbed the ‘Black Letter’ by Palestinians, who saw it as a reversal of the White Paper’s policy as a result of Zionist pressure.
Second British census of Palestine: 73% Muslim; 17% Jewish; 9% Christian.
1933
Arabs observe a general strike to protest Britain's pro-Zionist policies. Riots in Jaffa and Jerusalem with strong anti-British overtones.
1936 (April)
Leaders of all five Palestinian political parties call for a general strike rebellion.
1937
British Royal (Peel) Commission report recommends partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Strong opposition from Arabs.
1937-38
Second phase of Arab rebellion.
1937-39
The Irgun (a Jewish military organization) plants bombs in buses and marketplaces, killing and wounding hundreds of Palestinian civilians.
1939
Round Table Conference on Palestine in London, followed by 1939 White Paper restricting Jewish immigration and land buying.
1942
The Biltmore Program, issued by the Jewish Agency after a meeting in New York, demands unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine, the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth there, and the organization of a Jewish army.
1944
Irgun and Stern Gang work together in a campaign of terror against the British.
The U.S. Congress introduces joint resolution endorsing the Biltmore Program.
1945
The U.S. House of Representatives calls for unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine in order to establish a Jewish commonwealth there.
1946 (Jan.) Anglo-American commission of inquiry visits Palestine and recommends continuation of the British Mandate.
1946 (Sept.) London Conference on the future of Palestine to consider British proposals for its division into Jewish and Arab provinces under a British High Commissioner. Representatives of some Arab governments attend the conference but no representatives of Palestinian Arabs or Zionists attend.
Zionist terrorist attacks against the British intensify.
1947 (Feb.) British decide to relinquish the Palestine Mandate.
(Apr.) UN General Assembly opens a special session on the Palestine problem.
(Nov.) UN recommends partition of Palestine.
1948 (May)
With Britain out of Palestine, the Jews proclaim the area as the Jewish state of Israel. Arab armies invade Zionist colonies and reclaim some Palestinian villages. The Arab state of Palestine is split into three parts: some is taken and incorporated into Israel; the Gaza Strip is held and governed by Egypt; and the West Bank of the Jordan River is held by Jordan. The UN had proposed that Jerusalem and other holy places become an internationally governed entity. During the fighting, Jerusalem was divided into Israeli West and Jordanian East.
Members of the Irgun and Haganah Zionist military organizations detonate car bombs, shell and destroy Palestinian villages and neighborhoods, and build large weapons arsenals. Palestinian irregulars strike back but cannot match Zionist resources and organization.
Irgun and Stern Gang massacre 245 Palestinian inhabitants of Deir Yassin, a village near Jerusalem.
1948-50
Over 725,000 Palestinians are driven out of their homeland or flee the fighting that accompanied the establishment of Israel. By 1950, more than one million Palestinians live in UN-supported refugee camps in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Jordan.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query palestine. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query palestine. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
If you are interested in the history of the Palestine-Israel conflict, you will find the concise The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict by Jews for Justice to be useful. It began as a pamphlet written and published by a group of concerned Jewish American citizens in Berkeley, and now it's a website, used by other informative sites such as If Americans Knew, also run by concerned Americans.
It seems that residents of the San Francisco Bay area have always had a different understanding of Palestine. In 1991 during a trip to San Francisco I found this post card in a book store. I remember thinking "wow I can't believe this is being sold at a book store in America."
America has been slowly changing its view on this conflict, which has been the main source of tensions between Arabs and America for 60 years. More Americans are beginning to realize the portrait of Israel as innocent victim is not quite true, and they are beginning to question America's unconditional support for Israeli expansionism. Just last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Israel emphatically that the construction of settlements must stop. It seems that the Obama administration is serious about pressuring Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, more so than previous administrations. Clinton also recently blasted Israel's plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. As noted on If Americans Knew, 18,147 Palestinian homes were destroyed between 1967 and 2006. So far Netanyahu has refused to stop expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Many Arabs and Arab Americans regard Obama's pick of Rahm Emanuel as business as usual, as another misguided move by a biased administration. But as Newsweek pointed out, Rahm Emanuel may be Obama's "secret weapon" with Israel: 'It's not just that Obama can use Emanuel's Israel-friendly reputation as a kind of shield, allowing him to display "tough love" toward the Jewish state. Daroff told NEWSWEEK Rahm has such a nuanced understanding of Israeli politics, he can easily act as the president's BS detector as negotiations go forward.'
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I hope Obama's team is able to bring about real peace and justice in Palestine.
I began reading about this conflict as a student at the University of Colorado. The political atmosphere in Boulder was more liberal than where I grew up in the suburbs of Denver, but over the four years I spent in Boulder I noticed a change in attitude among Americans, a general increase in sympathy for Palestinians. I like to think this change was the result of our work at the Arab Students Club, but more likely it was the result of brave efforts by American Jews who were concerned about the injustice in Palestine and wanted to help stop it. The US media was biased towards Israel throughout the 80s, and the Palestinian perspective was simply not covered in US mainstream media. Only horrific incidents like Baruch Goldstein's gunning down of dozens of Palestinians in a mosque made the news in America, and even then it didn't generate much public debate about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians.
Although some American mainstream media (such as 60 Minutes and Real Time) have been paying more attention to the Palestinian perspective recently, serious debate about this conflict has been confined to universities. At CU Boulder I met many well read intellectuals, including a smart Lebanese student named Ghassan, who became the President of the Arab Students Club until he graduated. Ghassan filled the bookshelves of the office with books about the history of Palestine. One of these books was The Hidden History of Zionism, by Ralph Schoenman. This book, more than any other, shocked me into sympathy for Palestinians. That's when the hypocrisy in US foreign policy and American attitudes with respect to Israel became highlighted in my mind.
After college I continued to read books and articles about the conflict, and by 2000 I felt that I knew more about the history of Palestine than I did about the history of Iraq. In the 1990s the public found a new tool for debate: the world wide web. The web changed everything. Suddenly Americans did not have to rely on US mainstream media to learn about the history of the conflict, and they also gained access to foreign media, which in general has always had a different perspective on Palestine. Le Monde, for example, has always been more objective in general than American media. Even Israeli media such as Haaretz has paid more attention to Palestinian suffering than FOX News and other popular sources of American news. A heartening fact that should be emphasized here: many American and Israeli Jews are quite aware and concerned about the injustice against Palestinians.
Could it be that the web has forced American mainstream media to focus more on the Palestinian perspective?
In the late 90s the debate about Israel-Palestine on the Yahoo message boards always attracted the most comments, about ten times the number of comments as the board on Iraq. It is no different on my blog. Both sides are passionate about this issue. American conservatives in general seem to dismiss the suffering of Palestinians and deny that injustice has been done to them. Extremist Arabs, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and refuse to allow Arab nations to recognize Israel. Hardcore Arab nationalists wanted to push the Israelis into the sea, and this attitude only aggravated the tensions. But the reality of the conflict has been much different than the rhetoric of Arab nationalists. Israelis have not been pushed into the sea. On the contrary - Palestinians have been pushed into other countries and into the hills of the West Bank (and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine. Since 1967 Israelis have moved into the West Bank, and it is clear that Israel wants to annex the West Bank without giving citizenship to its Palestinian inhabitants, many of whom are refugees from previous wars.
The relationship between Iraqi Shia and Palestinians has deteriorated over the last two decades. In 1990 Yasser Arafat expressed his support for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. After 2003 this relationship deteriorated further, especially after Saddam was hanged. Current relations between the Iraqi Shia and the Palestinians does not change the fact that Palestinians have been wronged for the last 60 years. What happens in Iraq does not change the origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict and it does not justify Israeli expansionism and oppression of the Palestinian people.
Rev 06/03/09: Added "(and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine."
It seems that residents of the San Francisco Bay area have always had a different understanding of Palestine. In 1991 during a trip to San Francisco I found this post card in a book store. I remember thinking "wow I can't believe this is being sold at a book store in America."America has been slowly changing its view on this conflict, which has been the main source of tensions between Arabs and America for 60 years. More Americans are beginning to realize the portrait of Israel as innocent victim is not quite true, and they are beginning to question America's unconditional support for Israeli expansionism. Just last week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Israel emphatically that the construction of settlements must stop. It seems that the Obama administration is serious about pressuring Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, more so than previous administrations. Clinton also recently blasted Israel's plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem. As noted on If Americans Knew, 18,147 Palestinian homes were destroyed between 1967 and 2006. So far Netanyahu has refused to stop expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Many Arabs and Arab Americans regard Obama's pick of Rahm Emanuel as business as usual, as another misguided move by a biased administration. But as Newsweek pointed out, Rahm Emanuel may be Obama's "secret weapon" with Israel: 'It's not just that Obama can use Emanuel's Israel-friendly reputation as a kind of shield, allowing him to display "tough love" toward the Jewish state. Daroff told NEWSWEEK Rahm has such a nuanced understanding of Israeli politics, he can easily act as the president's BS detector as negotiations go forward.'
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I hope Obama's team is able to bring about real peace and justice in Palestine.
I began reading about this conflict as a student at the University of Colorado. The political atmosphere in Boulder was more liberal than where I grew up in the suburbs of Denver, but over the four years I spent in Boulder I noticed a change in attitude among Americans, a general increase in sympathy for Palestinians. I like to think this change was the result of our work at the Arab Students Club, but more likely it was the result of brave efforts by American Jews who were concerned about the injustice in Palestine and wanted to help stop it. The US media was biased towards Israel throughout the 80s, and the Palestinian perspective was simply not covered in US mainstream media. Only horrific incidents like Baruch Goldstein's gunning down of dozens of Palestinians in a mosque made the news in America, and even then it didn't generate much public debate about what Israel was doing to the Palestinians.
Although some American mainstream media (such as 60 Minutes and Real Time) have been paying more attention to the Palestinian perspective recently, serious debate about this conflict has been confined to universities. At CU Boulder I met many well read intellectuals, including a smart Lebanese student named Ghassan, who became the President of the Arab Students Club until he graduated. Ghassan filled the bookshelves of the office with books about the history of Palestine. One of these books was The Hidden History of Zionism, by Ralph Schoenman. This book, more than any other, shocked me into sympathy for Palestinians. That's when the hypocrisy in US foreign policy and American attitudes with respect to Israel became highlighted in my mind.
After college I continued to read books and articles about the conflict, and by 2000 I felt that I knew more about the history of Palestine than I did about the history of Iraq. In the 1990s the public found a new tool for debate: the world wide web. The web changed everything. Suddenly Americans did not have to rely on US mainstream media to learn about the history of the conflict, and they also gained access to foreign media, which in general has always had a different perspective on Palestine. Le Monde, for example, has always been more objective in general than American media. Even Israeli media such as Haaretz has paid more attention to Palestinian suffering than FOX News and other popular sources of American news. A heartening fact that should be emphasized here: many American and Israeli Jews are quite aware and concerned about the injustice against Palestinians. Could it be that the web has forced American mainstream media to focus more on the Palestinian perspective?
In the late 90s the debate about Israel-Palestine on the Yahoo message boards always attracted the most comments, about ten times the number of comments as the board on Iraq. It is no different on my blog. Both sides are passionate about this issue. American conservatives in general seem to dismiss the suffering of Palestinians and deny that injustice has been done to them. Extremist Arabs, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and refuse to allow Arab nations to recognize Israel. Hardcore Arab nationalists wanted to push the Israelis into the sea, and this attitude only aggravated the tensions. But the reality of the conflict has been much different than the rhetoric of Arab nationalists. Israelis have not been pushed into the sea. On the contrary - Palestinians have been pushed into other countries and into the hills of the West Bank (and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine. Since 1967 Israelis have moved into the West Bank, and it is clear that Israel wants to annex the West Bank without giving citizenship to its Palestinian inhabitants, many of whom are refugees from previous wars.
The relationship between Iraqi Shia and Palestinians has deteriorated over the last two decades. In 1990 Yasser Arafat expressed his support for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. After 2003 this relationship deteriorated further, especially after Saddam was hanged. Current relations between the Iraqi Shia and the Palestinians does not change the fact that Palestinians have been wronged for the last 60 years. What happens in Iraq does not change the origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict and it does not justify Israeli expansionism and oppression of the Palestinian people.
Rev 06/03/09: Added "(and now densely populated Gaza), the last 20% of historic Palestine."
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Speaking Frankly About Israel and Palestine
Members of the US government have always been reluctant to speak frankly about Israel and Palestine for a good reason: it is dangerous to the health of their careers. Americans who suggest that Israel has done wrong may be branded as anti-semitic, or unpatriotic, as if Israel is part of America. I believe that the fear of US officials to criticize Israel has much to do with the lobbying efforts of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). But it seems that American perceptions have been changing over the twenty years. Former Congressman Paul Findley was the first (to my knowledge) prominent American to examine America's lopsided attitude towards Israel and speak frankly about AIPAC's influence in his book They Dare To Speak Out, published by Independent Publishers Group in 1985 - apparently a large publishing company did not want to take the risk of publishing such a book back then.
The fear to speak frankly about Israel and Palestine still exists in Washington today, but the political atmosphere is not quite the same as it was in 1985. Former US President Jimmy Carter has written a book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published by big Simon & Schuster, and the mainstream media in America is allowing open discussion of the subject. Below is an Op-Ed piece written by Jimmy Carter and recently published by the L.A. Times. I have always respected Americans who are unafraid to speak the truth and understand the immediate need for a just solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Like Paul Findley, Jimmy Carter has earned my full respect.
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
"I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.'
The fear to speak frankly about Israel and Palestine still exists in Washington today, but the political atmosphere is not quite the same as it was in 1985. Former US President Jimmy Carter has written a book entitled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published by big Simon & Schuster, and the mainstream media in America is allowing open discussion of the subject. Below is an Op-Ed piece written by Jimmy Carter and recently published by the L.A. Times. I have always respected Americans who are unafraid to speak the truth and understand the immediate need for a just solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Like Paul Findley, Jimmy Carter has earned my full respect.
Speaking frankly about Israel and Palestine
"I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high — except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2% of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation accurately and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries. These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace," which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
The book is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent only a week or so on a book tour so far, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including "Larry King Live," "Hardball," "Meet the Press," "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," the "Charlie Rose" show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that "he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel." Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me "anti-Semitic," and others accuse the book of "lies" and "distortions." A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title "indecent."
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark — that I should be tried for treason — and one caller on C-SPAN said that I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn any acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the terrible casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this same goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.'
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"Arab Zionist" vs. "Self-Hating Jew"
The other day on facebook I noticed that Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, a facebook friend and a brilliant young author on his way to Oxford, slammed Nir Rosen for his unwise tweets about Lara Logan. Nir posted his apology on his facebook page, and there Aymenn criticized Nir. I forget Aymenn's original comment (I don't see that thread anymore) but Nir commented that "an Arab Zionist is an abomination" in reference to Aymenn. I was surprised to see that Nir and Aymenn are friends on facebook.
On his own facebook page, Aymenn posted that he "is thrilled to have had his existence described as an 'abomination' by the disgraced Nir Rosen! A hearty 'Aymenn' to that!" Aymenn wrote in a comment: "If 'self-hating Jew' has any meaning, then Nir Rosen matches that definition."
In the late 1990s on the Yahoo message boards I saw many pro-Israel Jews and Christians calling Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Ralph Schoenman, and other Jewish critics of Israel "self-hating Jews" but I have never seen an Arab call anybody a self-hating Jew until a few days ago on facebook. What is a "self-hating Jew"? And what is an "Arab Zionist"?
I believe that Nir Rosen is also a brilliant author and journalist, although I haven't always agreed with him. I think Nir wants what's best for Iraqis, but Nir's views on Iraq have often seemed to be "pro-resistance" and I've criticized him for ignoring the history of sectarian conflict in Iraq before 2003. But calling him a "self-hating Jew" is a bit over the top. Just because Nir is pro-Palestinian doesn't mean he hates Jews, and he definitely does not hate himself. On the other hand, calling Aymenn an Arab Zionist also seems to be wrong. I wondered what makes Aymenn a Zionist, so I asked him how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. He responded:
That seems reasonable. So Aymenn is a Zionist because he believes that the Arabs should accept Israel's existence according to 1967 borders? I have never seen a right-wing Zionist call for Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.
I've written a few posts about Palestine, and anybody who has read any of them would probably conclude that I am pro-Palestinian, yet I have been called a "Zionist" before. What is a Zionist? According to the Advanced English Dictionary (iPhone app) a Zionist is a "Jewish supporter of Zionism" and Zionism is a "policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine." Obviously Aymenn is not Jewish, yet he supports Israel's right to exist. Maybe in a way this makes Aymenn a Zionist. But does this make him an abomination? I don't think so.
I wonder what Nir's solution to the conflict would be. Does Nir believe that Arabs should naturally be against Israel? Does he believe that Israel should be destroyed and that Arabs should support the destruction of Israel?
I don't agree completely with Aymenn's views. It's easy to say today that the Arabs should have accepted partition in 1948, and I don't believe that the Arabs launched wars in all five cases. To say that in 1948 the Arabs launched a "war of aggression" against Israel is to be simplistic and misleading. From the Arab point of view, they were defending Palestine, an Arab land, against colonialism. I like what Ghandi wrote in 1938:
By 1948, however, after the Holocaust and the foolish Farhood al Yahood in Iraq, the Jews had gained the sympathy of the world. Most people agreed that the Jews should suffer no more and that they deserved a homeland. But was the partition of Palestine fair to the Arabs? Palestinian scholar Sami Hadawi wrote in A Bitter Harvest:
Furthermore, Zionist leaders were intent from the beginning to take all of Palestine:
1967 is another one of those "wars of aggression" that the Arabs allegedly launched. I believed this too until I entered college and began reading Noam Chomsky:
Since 1967, Israel has demolished thousands of Palestinian homes and has annexed large parts of what remains of Palestine. Even the US government agrees that Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory since 1967 is illegal.
Too many westerners have accepted the notion that the Arabs launched "wars of aggression" against Israel. It's kinda like saying, without elaborating, that the native Americans launched "wars of aggression" against the US after 1776. Apparently right wing Israelis and Americans believe that it is Israel's manifest destiny to take all of Palestine. But how do they do this and keep Israel a Jewish state? Even the "Arab Zionist" Aymenn says that "Jewish settlements across the West Bank will become the vanguard of a binational state, thereby endangering the very character of the Jewish state they claim to espouse." I agree. Also I agree with Aymenn that negotiations must continue, even with continued settlement building (because Israel will continue to build settlements even without negotiations), and that if the Palestinians of East Jerusalem vote to become part of Israel, then so be it, although I question Palestinians' desire to be part of Israel. I do not agree, however, that the Palestinians should be arm-twisted into accepting concessions that make them look foolish. Aymenn and many westerners evidently believe that Olmert and Barak made generous offers to the Palestinians, but I don't blame the Palestinians for rejecting those offers. Why should the Palestinians settle for anything less than complete control of the entire West Bank and Gaza, just 22% of historic Palestine?
I'm not Jewish, and had I lived in the Middle East in 1947, I probably would have been against the partition of Palestine. Palestine was partitioned nonetheless, and the Arabs lost their fight to keep it whole. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes and were not allowed to return. That was an abomination, just as the subsequent expulsion of Jews from Arab nations was an abomination. The continued oppression of Palestinians and Israel's expansion into Palestinian land is also an abomination, I believe, and it is why the conflict continues. However, to call for the destruction of Israel is not only wrong, not to mention impractical, but I believe it hurts the Palestinian cause.
On his own facebook page, Aymenn posted that he "is thrilled to have had his existence described as an 'abomination' by the disgraced Nir Rosen! A hearty 'Aymenn' to that!" Aymenn wrote in a comment: "If 'self-hating Jew' has any meaning, then Nir Rosen matches that definition."
In the late 1990s on the Yahoo message boards I saw many pro-Israel Jews and Christians calling Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Ralph Schoenman, and other Jewish critics of Israel "self-hating Jews" but I have never seen an Arab call anybody a self-hating Jew until a few days ago on facebook. What is a "self-hating Jew"? And what is an "Arab Zionist"?
I believe that Nir Rosen is also a brilliant author and journalist, although I haven't always agreed with him. I think Nir wants what's best for Iraqis, but Nir's views on Iraq have often seemed to be "pro-resistance" and I've criticized him for ignoring the history of sectarian conflict in Iraq before 2003. But calling him a "self-hating Jew" is a bit over the top. Just because Nir is pro-Palestinian doesn't mean he hates Jews, and he definitely does not hate himself. On the other hand, calling Aymenn an Arab Zionist also seems to be wrong. I wondered what makes Aymenn a Zionist, so I asked him how to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. He responded:
I support the two-state solution along the pre-67 borders as the best option. A West Bank confederation with Jordan has its merits, but it's not going to be accepted any time soon. Anyway, paramount to a lasting two-state solution will be the recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state by the Palestinian leadership- a requirement as per UN General Assembly Resolution 181- and that the right of return is simply untenable. The population has to be taught this as well- it's no good to give a different message to the people.
On the other hand, elements of the Israeli right have to realise that the West Bank cannot remain occupied, and continued construction of Jewish settlements across the West Bank will become the vanguard of a binational state, thereby endangering the very character of the Jewish state they claim to espouse. That said, I don't think that settlement building should be a reason to refuse to continue negotiations. I would like to see a final agreement reached even if settlement building continues- it's an issue that can be easily resolved after a deal is struck. Incidentally, a land swap whereby Israel gets to keep some of the major settlements like Arial in return for some land from 1948 Israel for a Palestinian state is reasonable.
Whilst Palestinian leaders should not feel a need to exclude Jews from being part of a Palestinian state, they have every right to demand that Israel respect its right to exist as a Palestinian state (also per Resolution 181).
As for East Jerusalem, it should be subject to a referendum as I find that many polls indicate that the Arab inhabitants would prefer to remain with Israel rather than become incorporated into a Palestinian state.
Hamas: it's unreasonable to expect Hamas to be incorporated into the peace process when the group doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist- what's the point in negotiating with someone who doesn't recognise you? In fact, progress in negotiations with the PA leading to a two-state solution could well prove essential for getting rid of Hamas, as it is hard to imagine that the people of Gaza would want to be 'left behind'.
In this context, I should note that it was disastrous for the Palestinian leadership to reject Ehud Olmert's offer for a Palestinian state:
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2074.htm
As for my view of the history of the conflict, Israel's record has not been entirely clean (e.g. expulsions in 1948), but ultimately the blame for a lack of a Palestinian state lies with the Arab states who repeatedly launched wars of aggression to try to destroy Israel. They should simply have accepted the original partition in 1948.
That seems reasonable. So Aymenn is a Zionist because he believes that the Arabs should accept Israel's existence according to 1967 borders? I have never seen a right-wing Zionist call for Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.
I've written a few posts about Palestine, and anybody who has read any of them would probably conclude that I am pro-Palestinian, yet I have been called a "Zionist" before. What is a Zionist? According to the Advanced English Dictionary (iPhone app) a Zionist is a "Jewish supporter of Zionism" and Zionism is a "policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine." Obviously Aymenn is not Jewish, yet he supports Israel's right to exist. Maybe in a way this makes Aymenn a Zionist. But does this make him an abomination? I don't think so.
I wonder what Nir's solution to the conflict would be. Does Nir believe that Arabs should naturally be against Israel? Does he believe that Israel should be destroyed and that Arabs should support the destruction of Israel?
I don't agree completely with Aymenn's views. It's easy to say today that the Arabs should have accepted partition in 1948, and I don't believe that the Arabs launched wars in all five cases. To say that in 1948 the Arabs launched a "war of aggression" against Israel is to be simplistic and misleading. From the Arab point of view, they were defending Palestine, an Arab land, against colonialism. I like what Ghandi wrote in 1938:
“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”
--Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in “A Land of Two Peoples” ed. Mendes-Flohr.
By 1948, however, after the Holocaust and the foolish Farhood al Yahood in Iraq, the Jews had gained the sympathy of the world. Most people agreed that the Jews should suffer no more and that they deserved a homeland. But was the partition of Palestine fair to the Arabs? Palestinian scholar Sami Hadawi wrote in A Bitter Harvest:
“Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body — a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter.”
Furthermore, Zionist leaders were intent from the beginning to take all of Palestine:
“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine’...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: ‘The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever.”
--Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle”
1967 is another one of those "wars of aggression" that the Arabs allegedly launched. I believed this too until I entered college and began reading Noam Chomsky:
“The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was ‘no threat of destruction’ but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could ‘exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.’...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: ‘In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.’“
--Noam Chomsky, “The Fateful Triangle”
Since 1967, Israel has demolished thousands of Palestinian homes and has annexed large parts of what remains of Palestine. Even the US government agrees that Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory since 1967 is illegal.
Too many westerners have accepted the notion that the Arabs launched "wars of aggression" against Israel. It's kinda like saying, without elaborating, that the native Americans launched "wars of aggression" against the US after 1776. Apparently right wing Israelis and Americans believe that it is Israel's manifest destiny to take all of Palestine. But how do they do this and keep Israel a Jewish state? Even the "Arab Zionist" Aymenn says that "Jewish settlements across the West Bank will become the vanguard of a binational state, thereby endangering the very character of the Jewish state they claim to espouse." I agree. Also I agree with Aymenn that negotiations must continue, even with continued settlement building (because Israel will continue to build settlements even without negotiations), and that if the Palestinians of East Jerusalem vote to become part of Israel, then so be it, although I question Palestinians' desire to be part of Israel. I do not agree, however, that the Palestinians should be arm-twisted into accepting concessions that make them look foolish. Aymenn and many westerners evidently believe that Olmert and Barak made generous offers to the Palestinians, but I don't blame the Palestinians for rejecting those offers. Why should the Palestinians settle for anything less than complete control of the entire West Bank and Gaza, just 22% of historic Palestine?
I'm not Jewish, and had I lived in the Middle East in 1947, I probably would have been against the partition of Palestine. Palestine was partitioned nonetheless, and the Arabs lost their fight to keep it whole. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes and were not allowed to return. That was an abomination, just as the subsequent expulsion of Jews from Arab nations was an abomination. The continued oppression of Palestinians and Israel's expansion into Palestinian land is also an abomination, I believe, and it is why the conflict continues. However, to call for the destruction of Israel is not only wrong, not to mention impractical, but I believe it hurts the Palestinian cause.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Israel must change for the sake of peace
I've been thinking a lot about Palestine the last few days, especially since hearing the news of the leaked documents that shows how the Palestinian Authority made all kinds of concessions to Israel, including giving up on the right of return. The PA also agreed to let Israel keep large parts of illegally occupied East Jerusalem. To this incredible (incredibly stupid) offer Israel said no thanks and gave no counter-offer. My first reaction was "is this really true?" Well it turned out to be true, and the documents were leaked to and by Al Jazeera. How embarrassing for the PA. They really are puppets, it seems. How sad for the Palestinians. Israel has taken four-fifths of historic Palestine and they inch closer to 100% with the help of the Palestinian Authority. What a betrayal.
There has been a "peace" between the "moderate" Arab states and Israel since the 70s, and top world leaders don't seem to care enough about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and Israeli annexation of Palestinian land to put real pressure on Israel to stop. The US government has it all under control: they paid Israel and Egypt billions of dollars, they vetoed every UN Security Council resolution against Israel, and they made sure the price of oil remains stable by all means possible. They got Israeli and Palestinian leaders to talk about resolving the conflict, and evidently they got the PA to cave on key demands. Yet Israel's response to the PA concessions was to say NO THANKS, Israel's getting by just fine annexing land whenever Israel wants. Americans call this the "peace process".
It has been obvious for a long time that Israel would like to annex the West Bank, and probably many conservative Americans would like the US government to help Israel in achieving that goal. But how will they achieve this and keep Israel Jewish? How does Israel take the rest of the 20% of historic Palestine without expelling a majority of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza? In the modern age of the internet and freedom of the press, it has become difficult for Israel to pull off a Deir Yassin often enough to chase most Palestinians out. Even America would not allow it (except maybe the Tea Party). So the Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza grow, even with continued emigration and economic hardships.
Israel does not want to give the Palestinians in the occupied territories Israeli citizenship, because then there would be more Palestinian citizens of Israel than Jews, and it would no longer be a "Jewish" state. So the progressive Israelis realize they need a two state solution.
And the conservatives just keep demolishing and saying God gave them that land, dammit.
Jeff Halper, who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, summarizes:
Israel, especially when led by conservative governments, has stalled on real peace, and the US, along with its "moderate" allies in the region - Egypt, Jordan, KSA - have helped Israel stall. Now we know the Palestinian Authority has also helped Israel stall. It should be no wonder why so many Arabs have turned to the Muslim Brotherhood for answers. The policies of the US and Israel since 1967 have created enemies across the Middle East, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has resulted in unprecedented terrorism.
The need for justice in Palestine has become even more imperative now that the Egyptian people have stood up to Mubarak, who's been taking billions of dollars in US aid but has done little to alleviate poverty in his country. Mubarak has done what the US and Israel want him to do: clamp down on Islamic extremism and seal the border with Gaza. Essentially the US, Israel, and Egypt have been implementing measures to ensure "stability" in the short term. But what does "stability" mean? And how long are the Arabs supposed to stand by as Israel annexes more Palestinian land and makes life difficult for Palestinians in the territories?
Sealing borders and imprisoning Muslim fundamentalists may be a short term solution, but it will not solve the Palestine problem. Military spending will not bring true peace to Israel. Egyptians are no doubt pissed off at their government for taking Israel's side and doing nothing to help end the plight of the Palestinians.
Israel alone can defeat any Arab nation military, including Egypt. But that doesn't mean that Israel should not change. Israel must change; Israel must be fair to the Palestinians in order to bring about true peace. If they agree to a two state solution, Palestine must not look like an archipelago state. If they annex the remainder of Palestine and opt for a one state solution, the new Palestinian citizens of Israel must have the same rights as Jews.
Arabs and Muslims must also change. They must stop calling for the "destruction" of Israel. There will be no destruction of Israel. There will be no "pushing Israel into the sea" as the Baathists proclaimed in the 60s. The reality has been the opposite in the last half century: the Palestinians were pushed into the hills of the West Bank, into Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Arabs must be fair to the Israelis, a large number of whom were born in Israel and should not be blamed for what happened decades ago. The Arabs should remember the Arab Jews who were expelled from Arab nations over the last six decades. The Arabs should be educated on the Holocaust, but Israel should not exploit it. The age of healing wounds must begin in earnest. It will help Iraq heal too, I believe.
Why is Palestine-Israel so important? Because it is decades old. The injustice continues; it's a wound that will not go away and it unites Arabs and Muslims. It must be dealt with fairly. The closer you are to Palestine the more you feel the injustice. Cairo is very close to Palestine and has been directly involved in the conflict since 1947. A democratically elected government of Egypt will demand justice for the Palestinians. Without justice, there will be no peace.
There has been a "peace" between the "moderate" Arab states and Israel since the 70s, and top world leaders don't seem to care enough about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and Israeli annexation of Palestinian land to put real pressure on Israel to stop. The US government has it all under control: they paid Israel and Egypt billions of dollars, they vetoed every UN Security Council resolution against Israel, and they made sure the price of oil remains stable by all means possible. They got Israeli and Palestinian leaders to talk about resolving the conflict, and evidently they got the PA to cave on key demands. Yet Israel's response to the PA concessions was to say NO THANKS, Israel's getting by just fine annexing land whenever Israel wants. Americans call this the "peace process".
It has been obvious for a long time that Israel would like to annex the West Bank, and probably many conservative Americans would like the US government to help Israel in achieving that goal. But how will they achieve this and keep Israel Jewish? How does Israel take the rest of the 20% of historic Palestine without expelling a majority of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza? In the modern age of the internet and freedom of the press, it has become difficult for Israel to pull off a Deir Yassin often enough to chase most Palestinians out. Even America would not allow it (except maybe the Tea Party). So the Palestinian populations in the West Bank and Gaza grow, even with continued emigration and economic hardships.
Israel does not want to give the Palestinians in the occupied territories Israeli citizenship, because then there would be more Palestinian citizens of Israel than Jews, and it would no longer be a "Jewish" state. So the progressive Israelis realize they need a two state solution.
And the conservatives just keep demolishing and saying God gave them that land, dammit.
Jeff Halper, who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, summarizes:
"In the complex situation in which Palestinians and Israelis currently find themselves, two things seems equally evident: First, a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel is an absolute prerequisite for a just and lasting peace; and second, Israel needs a Palestinian state. Without a Palestine state Israel faces what it considers as two unacceptable options. If it annexes the Occupied Territories and grants citizenship to their three million Palestinian inhabitants, it creates de facto a bi-national state of 5 million Jews and 4 million Palestinians (not counting the refugees), an option that would end the Zionist enterprise. If it continues its Occupation, it inevitably creates a system of outright apartheid, an untenable option in the long run."
Israel, especially when led by conservative governments, has stalled on real peace, and the US, along with its "moderate" allies in the region - Egypt, Jordan, KSA - have helped Israel stall. Now we know the Palestinian Authority has also helped Israel stall. It should be no wonder why so many Arabs have turned to the Muslim Brotherhood for answers. The policies of the US and Israel since 1967 have created enemies across the Middle East, and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism has resulted in unprecedented terrorism.
The need for justice in Palestine has become even more imperative now that the Egyptian people have stood up to Mubarak, who's been taking billions of dollars in US aid but has done little to alleviate poverty in his country. Mubarak has done what the US and Israel want him to do: clamp down on Islamic extremism and seal the border with Gaza. Essentially the US, Israel, and Egypt have been implementing measures to ensure "stability" in the short term. But what does "stability" mean? And how long are the Arabs supposed to stand by as Israel annexes more Palestinian land and makes life difficult for Palestinians in the territories?
Sealing borders and imprisoning Muslim fundamentalists may be a short term solution, but it will not solve the Palestine problem. Military spending will not bring true peace to Israel. Egyptians are no doubt pissed off at their government for taking Israel's side and doing nothing to help end the plight of the Palestinians.
Israel alone can defeat any Arab nation military, including Egypt. But that doesn't mean that Israel should not change. Israel must change; Israel must be fair to the Palestinians in order to bring about true peace. If they agree to a two state solution, Palestine must not look like an archipelago state. If they annex the remainder of Palestine and opt for a one state solution, the new Palestinian citizens of Israel must have the same rights as Jews.
Arabs and Muslims must also change. They must stop calling for the "destruction" of Israel. There will be no destruction of Israel. There will be no "pushing Israel into the sea" as the Baathists proclaimed in the 60s. The reality has been the opposite in the last half century: the Palestinians were pushed into the hills of the West Bank, into Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East. Nevertheless, the Arabs must be fair to the Israelis, a large number of whom were born in Israel and should not be blamed for what happened decades ago. The Arabs should remember the Arab Jews who were expelled from Arab nations over the last six decades. The Arabs should be educated on the Holocaust, but Israel should not exploit it. The age of healing wounds must begin in earnest. It will help Iraq heal too, I believe.
Why is Palestine-Israel so important? Because it is decades old. The injustice continues; it's a wound that will not go away and it unites Arabs and Muslims. It must be dealt with fairly. The closer you are to Palestine the more you feel the injustice. Cairo is very close to Palestine and has been directly involved in the conflict since 1947. A democratically elected government of Egypt will demand justice for the Palestinians. Without justice, there will be no peace.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
How Arabs reach out to their Iraqi “brothers”
I find it interesting how some Arabs try to reach out to me on my blog and other blogs. Recently two of my Arab brothers, a Lebanese Australian and a Palestinian American, dropped by to “reach out” by leaving some friendly, Arab-like comments for my post “Obama Talks to Arabs & Muslims”. The Lebanese Australian brother’s first comment on my blog:
So Elie Wiesel is despicable, and I should not have his book displayed on my blog, lest my Arab brothers may vomit when visiting here. I did not know that Wiesel was a journalist for the Irgun, the militant Zionist group that participated in the attack on Deir Yassin in 1948, but I don’t think he deserves to be called “despicable” and I haven’t seen evidence that he supports the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Before this discussion, I knew Wiesel only from his book Night.
After the lovely exchange with my Lebanese Australian brother, who has attacked me for my “sectarianism” on other blogs before, a Palestinian American brother chimed in with this comment:
It depends on what “colonialism” and “settlements” mean, I responded. I insisted that I haven’t seen evidence that Wiesel supports the expulsion of natives from their homes. Colonialism is not necessarily the expulsion of natives from their lands, he retorted. He compared Jewish settlers to the Taliban. Some Jewish settlers are fanatical and some have engaged in horrific violence against Palestinians, but like the Taliban they are not. I wrote that I often see Arabs making inappropriate comparisons, “like comparing Guantanamo to Saddam-like imprisonment, or like comparing Abu Ghraib before 2003 to Abu Ghraib after 2003. Like comparing the IDF to Nazis. It is embarrassing.” He said “you are the embarrassment Mojo.”
He demanded that I tell him if I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization or legitimate resistance. The Arabs are in love with resistance. They drink, eat, and breathe resistance. But they have no answers when I point out that many Arabs who’ve lived all their lives just miles from occupied Palestine ended up traveling hundreds of miles to the east to mass murder Iraqis, except to say that it’s much easier to enter Iraq than to enter Israel or the West Bank, and that I should not use the term "3arab jarab". They have no answers to my bewilderment at the large number of non-Iraqi Arab suicide bombers who have killed and maimed mostly innocent Iraqis. They stay mum when I compare how the Arabs have resisted the occupation of Palestine to how the Arabs have resisted the occupation of Iraq. Apparently they would rather compare Israelis to Nazis.
He went on to write: “The good thing is our Shia brothers in Iraq overall support Palestine and the Palestinians. You are in the minority when it comes to your community and that is a good thing.”
So naturally I had to defend myself and show him that I do in fact support Palestine. I have written about Palestine on my blog. I support Palestine’s right to contiguous independent statehood, to freedom and prosperity, to peace. But I loathe the Palestinians who showed support for Saddam and Zarqawi. I will always call Arabs who supported Saddam and Zarqawi “3arab jarab”.
A few comments later my Palestinian American brother wrote this:
I asked him to give me an example of my sectarianism. He responded with: “I said i never saw you use the term Arab Jarab when it comes to Shia death squada. It is always in reference to Sunnis from what i have seen.”
Me: “There are Shia jarab, for sure. They just haven't killed any of my relatives. And the Shia jarab did not incite sectarian conflict in Iraq. There would have been no Shia Death Squads of there were no Sunni Death Squads like Al Qaeda to begin with.”
My Palestinian American brother, reaching out:
That’s when I found no patience left in me. I wrote “So the Baathists, with the help of 3arab jarab like Abu Musab al Zarqawi, responded to de-Baathification by blowing up markets, buses, police stations, weddings, funerals, universities.“
This is how my Arab “brothers” have reached out to me. It’s not the first time I’ve been called “sectarian”. Maybe I am sectarian. Would I be “sectarian” if the hardcore Baathists and their Wahhabi allies had not mass murdered Iraqi Shia in the first place? I doubt it.
It is not enough to commend the American President for wanting to help establish a contiguous Palestinian state. It is not enough that I have expressed sympathy with Palestinians who were expelled from their homes, who lost their children to Israeli bombing. Apparently Iraqis must express support for Hamas as well, or at least agree that Hamas is a legitimate “resistance” organization. We must condemn American support for Israel and US foreign policy in the Middle East in general, even as the same Arabs who hate America emigrate to America and become successful in America. We must not become angry when our Palestinian American friends say “bad move Shia” when we express joy or satisfaction at the hanging of Saddam or one of Saddam’s henchmen - we should at least find the humor in such statements, I am told. We must agree with our Arab “brothers” that Americans caused the sectarian conflict in Iraq, and IF Sunni Arabs caused violence in Iraq, it is because they were disenfranchised. We should not “demonize” Palestinians by linking to articles that show how some Palestinians supported Saddam or Zarqawi. We should avoid discussing Saddam's crimes before 2003, and if we must discuss life for Iraqis before 2003, we should say that it was better than after 2003, and we should blame the Americans for that and nobody else. And we must not display on our blogs books written by such “despicable” characters as Elie Wiesel.
”Finally the curiosity got the better of me. Books you're reading: Elie Wiesel?!! For godssake mojo! Elie Wiesel who's closer to a viper than to a weasel? For godsake, mojo!! Should I remind you how despicable this person is? This 'benefactor of humanity', the "great advocate for human rights' who never had anything to say about the Palestinian tragedy but scorn, contempt and accusations of anti-Semitism? Do you provide bags for those who feel like throwing up or should I bring my own?”
So Elie Wiesel is despicable, and I should not have his book displayed on my blog, lest my Arab brothers may vomit when visiting here. I did not know that Wiesel was a journalist for the Irgun, the militant Zionist group that participated in the attack on Deir Yassin in 1948, but I don’t think he deserves to be called “despicable” and I haven’t seen evidence that he supports the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. Before this discussion, I knew Wiesel only from his book Night.
After the lovely exchange with my Lebanese Australian brother, who has attacked me for my “sectarianism” on other blogs before, a Palestinian American brother chimed in with this comment:
"So Mojo, it is not despicable to support colonialism and settlements in Palestine"?
It depends on what “colonialism” and “settlements” mean, I responded. I insisted that I haven’t seen evidence that Wiesel supports the expulsion of natives from their homes. Colonialism is not necessarily the expulsion of natives from their lands, he retorted. He compared Jewish settlers to the Taliban. Some Jewish settlers are fanatical and some have engaged in horrific violence against Palestinians, but like the Taliban they are not. I wrote that I often see Arabs making inappropriate comparisons, “like comparing Guantanamo to Saddam-like imprisonment, or like comparing Abu Ghraib before 2003 to Abu Ghraib after 2003. Like comparing the IDF to Nazis. It is embarrassing.” He said “you are the embarrassment Mojo.”
He demanded that I tell him if I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization or legitimate resistance. The Arabs are in love with resistance. They drink, eat, and breathe resistance. But they have no answers when I point out that many Arabs who’ve lived all their lives just miles from occupied Palestine ended up traveling hundreds of miles to the east to mass murder Iraqis, except to say that it’s much easier to enter Iraq than to enter Israel or the West Bank, and that I should not use the term "3arab jarab". They have no answers to my bewilderment at the large number of non-Iraqi Arab suicide bombers who have killed and maimed mostly innocent Iraqis. They stay mum when I compare how the Arabs have resisted the occupation of Palestine to how the Arabs have resisted the occupation of Iraq. Apparently they would rather compare Israelis to Nazis.
He went on to write: “The good thing is our Shia brothers in Iraq overall support Palestine and the Palestinians. You are in the minority when it comes to your community and that is a good thing.”
So naturally I had to defend myself and show him that I do in fact support Palestine. I have written about Palestine on my blog. I support Palestine’s right to contiguous independent statehood, to freedom and prosperity, to peace. But I loathe the Palestinians who showed support for Saddam and Zarqawi. I will always call Arabs who supported Saddam and Zarqawi “3arab jarab”.
A few comments later my Palestinian American brother wrote this:
"Mojo, that is why i am reaching out to you but i feel that because i am Palestinians you are automatically rejecting me and judging me and my views. I believe you support Palestine but i also believe you can't have it both ways, you can't be critical of only Arabs but not Americans who back these Arabs or who back Israel."
I asked him to give me an example of my sectarianism. He responded with: “I said i never saw you use the term Arab Jarab when it comes to Shia death squada. It is always in reference to Sunnis from what i have seen.”
Me: “There are Shia jarab, for sure. They just haven't killed any of my relatives. And the Shia jarab did not incite sectarian conflict in Iraq. There would have been no Shia Death Squads of there were no Sunni Death Squads like Al Qaeda to begin with.”
My Palestinian American brother, reaching out:
“You have no proof of that claim on death squads, it is all assumptions on your part. Can't we argue there would be no Sunni death squads if they weren't disenfranchised?”
That’s when I found no patience left in me. I wrote “So the Baathists, with the help of 3arab jarab like Abu Musab al Zarqawi, responded to de-Baathification by blowing up markets, buses, police stations, weddings, funerals, universities.“
This is how my Arab “brothers” have reached out to me. It’s not the first time I’ve been called “sectarian”. Maybe I am sectarian. Would I be “sectarian” if the hardcore Baathists and their Wahhabi allies had not mass murdered Iraqi Shia in the first place? I doubt it.
It is not enough to commend the American President for wanting to help establish a contiguous Palestinian state. It is not enough that I have expressed sympathy with Palestinians who were expelled from their homes, who lost their children to Israeli bombing. Apparently Iraqis must express support for Hamas as well, or at least agree that Hamas is a legitimate “resistance” organization. We must condemn American support for Israel and US foreign policy in the Middle East in general, even as the same Arabs who hate America emigrate to America and become successful in America. We must not become angry when our Palestinian American friends say “bad move Shia” when we express joy or satisfaction at the hanging of Saddam or one of Saddam’s henchmen - we should at least find the humor in such statements, I am told. We must agree with our Arab “brothers” that Americans caused the sectarian conflict in Iraq, and IF Sunni Arabs caused violence in Iraq, it is because they were disenfranchised. We should not “demonize” Palestinians by linking to articles that show how some Palestinians supported Saddam or Zarqawi. We should avoid discussing Saddam's crimes before 2003, and if we must discuss life for Iraqis before 2003, we should say that it was better than after 2003, and we should blame the Americans for that and nobody else. And we must not display on our blogs books written by such “despicable” characters as Elie Wiesel.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Arabs blog for Palestine
A Harvard study of Arabic language blogs confirms that Arabs are more concerned about Palestine than terrorism, which is not surprising.
"The one political issue that clearly concerns bloggers across the Arab world is Palestine, and in particular the situation in Gaza (Israel’s December 2008/January 2009 military action occurred during the study). Other popular topics include religion (more in personal than political terms) and human rights (more common than criticism of western culture and values). Terrorism and the US are not major topics. When discussing terrorism, Arab bloggers are overwhelmingly critical of terrorists. When the US is discussed, it is nearly always critically."
Arab American bloggers also pay much more attention to Palestine than to the terrorism that has killed many more people in Iraq. If you've read Angry Arab or KABOBfest, you know what I'm talking about.
Many of my own posts have been about Palestine, but the continued terrorism that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis angers me much more, maybe because I am Iraqi and they are not. According to the study, "Most bloggers write mainly personal, diary-style observations. But when writing about politics, bloggers tend to focus on issues within their own country, and are more often than not critical of domestic political leaders."
"The one political issue that clearly concerns bloggers across the Arab world is Palestine, and in particular the situation in Gaza (Israel’s December 2008/January 2009 military action occurred during the study). Other popular topics include religion (more in personal than political terms) and human rights (more common than criticism of western culture and values). Terrorism and the US are not major topics. When discussing terrorism, Arab bloggers are overwhelmingly critical of terrorists. When the US is discussed, it is nearly always critically."
Arab American bloggers also pay much more attention to Palestine than to the terrorism that has killed many more people in Iraq. If you've read Angry Arab or KABOBfest, you know what I'm talking about.
Many of my own posts have been about Palestine, but the continued terrorism that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis angers me much more, maybe because I am Iraqi and they are not. According to the study, "Most bloggers write mainly personal, diary-style observations. But when writing about politics, bloggers tend to focus on issues within their own country, and are more often than not critical of domestic political leaders."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Black September
In the video I posted today the Arab narrator says the Jordanian King mass murdered Palestinians in the "August of the Black". He means Black September". I've heard Arabs before confuse the names of months in English. I found this Wikipedia entry:
I did not know that by 1949 the number of Palestinian refugees in Jordan had already equaled the entire native population of Jordan. Today up to 60 per cent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin.
I wondered how Scott Brown's Senate win will affect Obama's foreign policy and particularly the Obama administration's efforts to pressure Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, and I found this:
Two state solution? Isn't that what Democrats want? Solomonia wrote "...but the position paper is three pages long and more in-depth and supporters of Israel will love it."
The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in late 1947 led to civil war; the end of the British Mandate of Palestine and the unilateral Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, led to the invasion of the former borders of Palestine by neighboring Arab states and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The fighting between Israel and the Arab states was halted with the UN-mediated 1949 Armistice Agreements, but the remaining Palestinian territories came under the control of Egypt and Trans-Jordan. In 1949, Trans-Jordan officially changed its name to Jordan; in 1950, it annexed the West Bank of the Jordan River, and brought Palestinian representation into the government.
At the time, the population east of the Jordan River contained over 400,000 Palestinian refugees who made up one-third of the population; another third of the population was comprised of Palestinians on the West Bank. Only one third of the population consisted of the original inhabitants of Trans-Jordan, and meant that the Jordanians had become a ruling minority over a Palestinian majority. This proved to be a mercurial element in internal Jordanian politics and played a critical role in the political opposition. Since the 1950s, the West Bank had become the center of the national and territorial aspects of the Palestinian problem that was the key issue of Jordan's domestic and foreign policy. According to King Hussein, the Palestinian problem spelled "life or death" for Jordan and would remain the country's overriding national security issue.[4]
King Hussein feared an independent West Bank under PLO administration would threaten the autonomy of his Hashemite kingdom.[5][6]. The Palestinian factions were supported variously by many Arab regimes, most notably Egypt's President Nasser, who gave political support; and Saudi Arabia, which gave financial support.[citation needed] The Palestinian nationalist organization Fatah started organizing attacks against Israel in January 1965, and it was subject to repeated cross-border attacks by Palestinian fedayeen; these often drew disproportionate reprisals that killed and injured Jordanians as well. [7] The Samu Incident was one such reprisal. Palestinian resistance received much broader support following the 1967 Six Day War, by which Israel captured and occupied the remaining portions of Palestine and additional land from neighboring Arab states. Jordan had long maintained secret contacts with Israel concerning peace and security along their border. Due to internal splits within the Jordanian government and population however, many of King Hussein's orders to stop these raids were not obeyed, and some Jordanian commanders along the Israeli-Jordanian border began giving the Palestinian raids passive assistance.[8]
I did not know that by 1949 the number of Palestinian refugees in Jordan had already equaled the entire native population of Jordan. Today up to 60 per cent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin.
I wondered how Scott Brown's Senate win will affect Obama's foreign policy and particularly the Obama administration's efforts to pressure Israel to stop expanding into Palestinian territory, and I found this:
Israel has made enormous sacrifices in an attempt to secure peace - including unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. I support a two-state solution that reaffirms Israel's right to exist and provides the Palestinians with a place of their own where both sides can live in peace and security. As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel lives every day under the threat of terror yet shares with America a dedication to democratic ideals, a respect for faith, and a commitment to peace in the region. Until a lasting peace is achieved, I support the security barrier erected by Israel which has proven successful in protecting Israeli civilians from terrorist attacks.
Two state solution? Isn't that what Democrats want? Solomonia wrote "...but the position paper is three pages long and more in-depth and supporters of Israel will love it."
Friday, July 10, 2009
Iraq beats Palestine 3-0
Iraqi soccer team wins 1st home game in 7 years
By YAHYA BARZANJI
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) — Iraq played its first home soccer game since 2002, defeating Palestine 3-0 in a match that was as much about the nation's struggle for stability as it was about sports.
A sellout crowd of about 25,000 attended the exhibition game at Fransou Hariri Stadium, many waving Iraq and Palestine flags and chanting "Iraq, Iraq."
Some fans sat on the roofs of nearby buildings to catch a glimpse of the game in the capital of a Kurd-ruled region that was safer than many other parts of the country.
Palestine planned to fly to Baghdad for a second game Monday despite a deadly wave of bombings in the capital Thursday.
continued
By YAHYA BARZANJI
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) — Iraq played its first home soccer game since 2002, defeating Palestine 3-0 in a match that was as much about the nation's struggle for stability as it was about sports.
A sellout crowd of about 25,000 attended the exhibition game at Fransou Hariri Stadium, many waving Iraq and Palestine flags and chanting "Iraq, Iraq."
Some fans sat on the roofs of nearby buildings to catch a glimpse of the game in the capital of a Kurd-ruled region that was safer than many other parts of the country.
Palestine planned to fly to Baghdad for a second game Monday despite a deadly wave of bombings in the capital Thursday.
continued
Friday, February 04, 2011
Glenn Beck is afraid of the Caliphate
You should be, Glenn. LOL! A united Arab nation would control most of the world's oil. A united Muslim nation would be very powerful. If you were smart, Glenn, you would want a fair and quick resolution to the Palestine problem, because the injustice in Palestine continues, even though FOX News doesn't cover it.
I doubt all or most Muslim nations would ever be united under Islamic law. I wouldn't want to be a part of it. And I doubt we would be united on our views of Saddam. There are many differences between the Muslims. But I believe if there is one issue that unites the Arabs, if not most Muslims, it is Palestine. Palestine unites us; it may be the only thing that unites us, you should know this, Glenn.
From Wikipedia:
"The term caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife ) refers to the first system of government established in Islam, and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). In theory, it is a constitutional republic[1] (see Constitution of Medina), meaning that the head of state (the Caliph) and other officials are dicate to the people according to Islamic law, which exercises power over their citizens. It was initially led by Muhammad's disciples as a continuation of the political system the prophet established, known as the 'rashidun caliphates'. It represented the political unity, not the theological unity of Muslims as theology was a personal matter. It was the world's first major welfare state.[2] (Although this is also claimed by the Mauryan Empire, 800 years earlier)[3]. A "caliphate" is also a state which implements such a governmental system.
Sunni Islam dictates that the head of state, the caliph, should be selected by Shura – elected by Muslims or their representatives.[4] Followers of Shia Islam believe the caliph should be an imam descended in a line from the Ahl al-Bayt. After the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty."
I doubt all or most Muslim nations would ever be united under Islamic law. I wouldn't want to be a part of it. And I doubt we would be united on our views of Saddam. There are many differences between the Muslims. But I believe if there is one issue that unites the Arabs, if not most Muslims, it is Palestine. Palestine unites us; it may be the only thing that unites us, you should know this, Glenn.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
From Wikipedia:
"The term caliphate (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Halife ) refers to the first system of government established in Islam, and represented the political unity of the Muslim Ummah (nation). In theory, it is a constitutional republic[1] (see Constitution of Medina), meaning that the head of state (the Caliph) and other officials are dicate to the people according to Islamic law, which exercises power over their citizens. It was initially led by Muhammad's disciples as a continuation of the political system the prophet established, known as the 'rashidun caliphates'. It represented the political unity, not the theological unity of Muslims as theology was a personal matter. It was the world's first major welfare state.[2] (Although this is also claimed by the Mauryan Empire, 800 years earlier)[3]. A "caliphate" is also a state which implements such a governmental system.
Sunni Islam dictates that the head of state, the caliph, should be selected by Shura – elected by Muslims or their representatives.[4] Followers of Shia Islam believe the caliph should be an imam descended in a line from the Ahl al-Bayt. After the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first dynasty was the Umayyad. This was followed by the Abbasid, the Fatimid, and finally the Ottoman Dynasty."
Friday, January 16, 2009
Palestine
I have been thinking about writing a post about Palestine for months. I wanted to explain how Iraq's relationship with Palestine has deteriorated since 1991 and why the Palestinians in general have supported Saddam Hussein, and how disappointing that has been for many Iraqis. I wanted to point out that the Arabs never protested the mass murder of Iraqis as much as they have protested the Israeli bombing of Gaza. It sickened me to see photos of Palestinians in Gaza protesting the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the Jordanian who mass murdered Iraqis and instigated the sectarian war in Iraq.
Even after all this, it is hard for me not to sympathize with the Palestinian civilians who just want to live normal lives, especially after I read about the killing of children. Iraqi civilians have also been "accidentally" killed by US forces, but in Gaza the number of civilians, and children, killed by the IDF seems unusually high. What have these children done to Israel?
The conflict in Palestine has lasted more than 60 years now, and the root of the conflict remains the same: the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. The Palestinian Diaspora is huge, and many of the original refugees and their descendants live in Gaza. The conflict will continue if its root is not resolved fairly.
Even after all this, it is hard for me not to sympathize with the Palestinian civilians who just want to live normal lives, especially after I read about the killing of children. Iraqi civilians have also been "accidentally" killed by US forces, but in Gaza the number of civilians, and children, killed by the IDF seems unusually high. What have these children done to Israel?
The conflict in Palestine has lasted more than 60 years now, and the root of the conflict remains the same: the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. The Palestinian Diaspora is huge, and many of the original refugees and their descendants live in Gaza. The conflict will continue if its root is not resolved fairly.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Iraqi Communist Party supported partition of Palestine?
The Angry Arab wrote today about the Iraqi communist party:
The Iraqi communist party supported the partition of Palestine? What was their reasoning for supporting partition?
I did not know this. You see, sometimes I learn things from the Angry Arab. Although sometimes his comments raise more questions, like "did Iraqi communists support the US invasion or did they just want to see Saddam overthrown?" Some questions will never be answered.
It's also interesting to see that some Arabs would not forgive other Arabs for "supporting" the partition of Palestine, or they would not forgive Arabs who "supported" the US invasion of Iraq. You gotta forgive, or at least understand the others' views, if you want to be united, or at least intelligent. Take me, for example: I understand why Palestinians liked Saddam, and I forgive them. Try to forgive more, ya ikhwan.
PS: I just found this: "Another major issue for the party at this time was the Palestinian Question. Despite earlier support of Palestinian rights of self-determination, in July 1948 the party fell in line with Moscow's position of supporting a Zionist state. The party lost many supporters among the public because of this, and many members also resigned and left the party ranks in anger."
It is by far the most disgraceful and most disgraced communist party in the Arab world. If this party strove for decades to recover from its support for the partition of Palestine in 1947, it won't ever recover from its support for the American invasion of Iraq. Today, I searched the New York Times to see if there is anything about the decision by the Iraqi puppet government to harass the party and to evict it from its headquarters, but I found nothing--there is a long article about the removal of a wall from a neighborhood. But the Iraqi communist party deserves its plight: it aligned itself not only with the American occupation, but also with the sectarian forces that came along with the US tanks. IT deserves the worst plight just like that Tudeh party which aligned itself with Khumayni in Iran before he ordered its dissolution and execution of its members and leaders. The Iraqi communist party--historically speaking--is one of the reason why the Arab left suffered from a bad press and reputation. The relationship between the Iraqi communist party and the left is akin to the relationship between Sa`d Hariri and thinking.
The Iraqi communist party supported the partition of Palestine? What was their reasoning for supporting partition?
I did not know this. You see, sometimes I learn things from the Angry Arab. Although sometimes his comments raise more questions, like "did Iraqi communists support the US invasion or did they just want to see Saddam overthrown?" Some questions will never be answered.
It's also interesting to see that some Arabs would not forgive other Arabs for "supporting" the partition of Palestine, or they would not forgive Arabs who "supported" the US invasion of Iraq. You gotta forgive, or at least understand the others' views, if you want to be united, or at least intelligent. Take me, for example: I understand why Palestinians liked Saddam, and I forgive them. Try to forgive more, ya ikhwan.
PS: I just found this: "Another major issue for the party at this time was the Palestinian Question. Despite earlier support of Palestinian rights of self-determination, in July 1948 the party fell in line with Moscow's position of supporting a Zionist state. The party lost many supporters among the public because of this, and many members also resigned and left the party ranks in anger."
Monday, December 17, 2007
Interview With a Terrorist
An interesting interview with an Al Qaeda member in Lebanon who fought in Iraq as the "Emir of Training". He discusses his activities in Iraq and admits that he is a terrorist. He also admits that it is in the interest of Syria and Iran to cause violence in Iraq. He says "The more Iraq is destroyed, the more pleased they are..." Watch the clip or read the transcript. Excerpt about Iraq:
Interviewer: How did you come up with the idea of going to Iraq?
Jawhar: Most of the Muslim youth in Lebanon would set their sights on Jihad in Iraq. As you know, in general, the Lebanese structure and system prevent you from going to fight in Palestine, even though Palestine take precedence over Iraq and all the other countries. Palestine is our main cause. The structure here in Lebanon is completely messed up. You have to pass a hundred thousand obstacles in order to be able to fight the Jews is Palestine. That's impossible, because nobody – without any exception – wants the Muslim youth to go and fight the Jews. Even those who do fight the Jews do this out of their own considerations, and not out of ideology. I say this about everybody, with no exception. Therefore, Iraq is closer than Palestine – not in terms of distance, but in the sense that you can fight there, because everybody opens the gates to Iraq, but closes the gates to Palestine, even though it is more important.
Interviewer: So you went to Iraq to wage Jihad.
Jawhar: Yes. Did you think I went there to join their bowling or basketball team?
[...]
Interviewer: How did you get there? Through a mediator? Who was he? Where did you go from 'Ein Al-Hilweh?
Jawhar: From the Syrian border, a Syrian guy took us...The smuggler was Syrian, and he took us to some place I don't know in Damascus, and then a van came and took us to the heart of Damascus. Then one of the brothers in charge of receiving [the mujahideen] came. All this was coordinated in advance. It's not like when you go on a trip. Everything was coordinated – from here to Shtura, from Shtura to Damascus, and from Damascus to Iraq. Everything was coordinated by the brothers in charge of this stuff. They receive brothers and send them on. It's all organized. Nothing is improvised.
[...]
Interviewer: So when you got [to Iraq], they put you in a "guesthouse."
Jawhar: It was a regular house. We call any house where we stay a "guesthouse."
Interviewer: And after the guesthouse?
Jawhar: To work.
[...]
Interviewer: What was your role? What did you do?
Jawhar: I went there to conduct military training.
Interviewer: What kind of training?
Jawhar: I trained the brothers to wage guerilla warfare.
Interviewer: What kind of guerilla warfare?
Jawhar: By definition, guerilla warfare in the war of the weak against the strong. Guerilla warfare differs from war between two regular armies.
Interviewer: So you trained them to fight with weapons?
Jawhar: I trained them in urban warfare, raids, ambushes, and attacks. That's what guerilla warfare is about.
Interviewer: Did you participate in operations?
Jawhar: Yes.
Interviewer: What kind of operations?
Jawhar: Regular things. We used to attack the Americans. We used to carry out operations against the American bases in Iraq. We also used to set ambushes and attack American posts.
[...]
Interviewer: You say "against the Americans," but did you target only the Americans?
Jawhar: Everybody was targeted, but the Americans took precedence.
Interviewer: Who is "everybody"?
Jawhar: Whoever fights against "there is no god but Allah." Is someone who defends the Americans any better than them? The infidels are one and the same. An infidel is an infidel – whether he is a Palestinian, a Jew, or an Argentinean. The infidels are one and the same, while an American Muslim is a Muslim. So what's the problem? What, an Iraqi who is an apostate and who helps the Americans should be treated like a VIP? He is worse than the Americans.
Interviewer: Did you support the ideology of Al-Qaeda when you left for Iraq?
Jawhar: What, Al-Qaeda invented this ideology? They got their ideology from the Koran and the Sunna.
[...]
Interviewer: Did you meet people of different nationalities...
Jawhar: By Allah, people came and were martyred, and we didn't even know their nationalities. Let me tell you something – one brother was martyred, and we are still trying to guess whether he was from Eritrea, Yemen, or Sudan.
Interviewer: Brother Abu Omar, from your experience, what nationalities were prevalent there, apart from the Iraqis, of course...
Jawhar: There were Iraqis there?!
Interviewer: I mean apart from the Iraqis...
Jawhar: There were no Iraqis with us.
Interviewer: Are you serious?
Jawhar: They would go to sleep in their homes, while we slept in our posts.
Interviewer: They weren't afraid to sleep in their homes?
Jawhar: Why should they be afraid? Most of them were not known [as Al-Qaeda members]. Only a few of them were known to be Al-Qaeda members. They protect their identity when they move about.
Interviewer: So there are Iraqis...
Jawhar: There are many who are not recognized as Al-Qaeda members. They all wear ski masks.
Interviewer: When they carry out operations?
Jawhar: Yes. We had with us brothers from Tunisia, from Libya, Algeria, Morocco...To be honest, I never saw anyone from Mauritania there. There were Egyptian brothers, brothers from the Arabian Peninsula...I met several brothers from Kuwait, a brother from Qatar...There were Palestinians, Syrians of course, and Jordanians...
[...]
Interviewer: How many squads did you train in Iraq?
Jawhar: By Allah, many. I conducted training throughout the time I was there.
Interviewer: How many members did each squad have?
Jawhar: It depends – five, six, seven...In some areas, we couldn't have large squads. It depended on the area. In some areas, we could train without any problem, and in other areas, training was a little difficult.
Interviewer: The security forces were after you, of course.
Jawhar: If it was just the security forces, there wouldn't be a problem. The problem was the airplanes above. You didn't even know when a plane was following you from above.
Interviewer: Where would you conduct training?
Jawhar: In forests and woods...The only thing we worried about was [the planes] above. We didn't worry about anything but the spy planes. The thing the fighters in Iraq worried about most was these planes, because the Americans have superiority in the air only. A plane, several kilometers away, can see you, hear you, and take pictures of you. The only problem in Iraq is the air force.
Interviewer: Where did you conduct your training? How could you possibly train so many people, without anybody hearing the shooting, and without raising the suspicions of anybody in the region?
Jawhar: These areas were basically under our control. It's impossible for me to go into a house, knowing that someone might go and turn me in. These areas were entirely secured.
Interviewer: So the entire region belonged to you – to the Al-Qaeda organization or its supporters.
Jawhar: If it didn't belong to us, it was at least under out control. All these areas were under the control of the Al-Qaeda organization.
Interviewer: Who are "Ansar Al-Sunna"?
Jawhar: Originally, they were Kurds. They were near the Jordanian-Iraq border, and later, they spread throughout Iraq. At first, they were called "Ansar Al-Islam," and then they became "Ansar Al-Sunna."
[...]
Interviewer: Is Ansar Al-Sunna in agreement with Al-Qaeda? Do they participate in the operations, and share the same ideology, in theory and in practice?
Jawhar: Of course, totally. There is an alliance, and they share the same ideology. Their Emir was called Abu Hassan Al-Shaf'ei.
Interviewer: Did you meet Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi?
Jawhar: Sheik Abu Mus'ab did not appear very often. Not all the brothers met him. But sometimes, Sheik Abu Mus'ab would conduct a visit to our bases, and he would come unannounced. We would be sitting around, and the guys would walk in along with the sheik. They would sit with us for 15 minutes, half and hour, and then they would say goodbye and move on.
Interviewer: What exactly did he ask you to do?
Jawhar: Once he sent a brother as his representative, and asked me to carry out operations in the Baghdad area.
Interviewer: Did you carry them out?
Jawhar: Yes, Allah be praised.
Interviewer: What kind of operations?
Jawhar: Car bombings and killings. Regular stuff. What else could he be asking from us?
Interviewer: Against Iraqis, or...
Jawhar: No, against the Americans.
[...]
Jawhar: I have the ability to produce [explosives] from chemicals, and I can also use [ready-made explosives].
Interviewer: And these substances are available?
Jawhar: Yes, they are available in the markets. I cannot reveal exactly how I make them, because tomorrow someone might start selling them in the market.
Interviewer: From where would you get your cars?
Jawhar: Some of the cars we drove belonged to the brothers, and others were booty we took from the Americans or the Iraqis. So we used these cars.
Interviewer: From where did you get money? Where did the funding of Al-Qaeda in Iraq come from?
Jawhar: We used to get aid from abroad and we used to take booty. If we took 200-300 cars as booty – do you expect us to drive them all? So we sold them to the Kurds, and this way we got money.
Interviewer: Did you sell them specifically to the Kurds?
Jawhar: Yes, the Kurds buy even police cars. If we took a police car as booty, they would buy it without a problem. The Kurds have a lot of money now. The richest people in Iraq are the Kurds, then come the Shiites, and the Sunnis are the poorest of all.
[...]
Interviewer: Could you elaborate on the organizational structure, from the top of the pyramid to the lower divisions?
Jawhar: Brother Abu Mus'ab, Allah's mercy upon him, was at the top of the pyramid. Then came the brothers who were in charge of the different regions, like the Emir of the Baghdad belt, the Emir of Al-Anbar, the Emir of Mosul. Then came the administrative emirs. Then came the Emir in charge of religious ruling, and then the military Emir. The military Emir commanded the Emir of explosive devices, the Emir of shelling, the Emir of attacks, who was in charge of attacks, and the Emir in charge of booty. There is the administrative Emir, and then there is the military Emir. Under the military Emir, come the rest of the emirs in charge of the military activity.
Interviewer: Were you an Emir over there?
Jawhar: I was the Emir of training. I was the Emir who trained the brothers, and I had a training camp.
Interviewer: Where?
Jawhar: In Al-Haditha.
[...]
Jawhar: People from the Syrian intelligence came, and asked to meet with Shiek Abu Mus'ab. They said to him: "Brother, what weapons do you need?" They wanted to help, but [Al-Zarqawi] said: "No, we've got everything we need." He wouldn't take anything from them, even though we were in dire need of weapons. We didn't want to take anything from the Syrians, so it wouldn't be said the next day that we cooperated with them. This was the position of Sheik Abu Mus'ab. He was in need of every single bullet, and was offered whatever he wanted. He said: "I'm fighting the Americans, with or without you. Why should I fight the Americans on your behalf?"
Interviewer: How could the Syrian intelligence reach Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi? What was their purpose? What did the Syrian intelligence want?
Jawhar: It is not in the Syrians' interest that Iraq remain calm even for a moment. They benefit from this. The more Iraq is destroyed, the more pleased they are, because if the Americans feel comfortable in Iraq, they will move on to many other places. For the same reasons, it is not in the Iranians' interest...I don't know if you noticed, but the Shiites started fighting the Americans only two years ago. It's not the Shiites – the Iranians asked them to fight, and sent them weapons, explosive devices, and so on, because if the Americans feel comfortable in Iraq, they will move on to the other areas. Have you forgotten about the New Middle East?
[...]
Jawhar: We had with us a Tunisian brother, may Allah accept him [as a martyr], who managed to intercept the signals from the spy planes, and he could see everything the Americans were seeing.
Interviewer: So there were people who specialized in technology?
Jawhar: We had an American brother with us, we had a Belgian brother and French brothers with us. They were all educated intellectuals. I had with me a brother who had an M.A. in economics. He once conducted a study about the losses incurred following 9/11. He calculated the American economic losses down to the last cent.
Interviewer: Where was he from?
Jawhar: He was a Palestinian from Jordan. He had British citizenship as well.
Interviewer: Was there any contact between the main Al-Qaeda organization and Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the other branches?
Jawhar: When Sheik Abu Mus'ab, Allah's mercy upon him, pledged allegiance to Sheik Osama, naturally, contacts were formed.
Interviewer: How were these contacts held? Through the Internet?
Jawhar: This I don't know.
Interviewer: Through mediators?
Jawhar: I don't know.
[...]
Interviewer: When did you join 'Usbat Al-Ansar?
Jawhar: In 1991.
Interviewer: Why did you join them?
Jawhar: Because of their ideology. They call for Jihad, the revival of the Islamic Caliphate, and the liberation of Palestine, and these ideas appealed to me. After all, I'm a Muslim, so I joined 'Usbat Al-Ansar.
Interviewer: You train people now. Who trained you?
Jawhar: I received training when I was in 'Usbat Al-Ansar, and before that, I was a member of the Fatah youth. In general, most Palestinians know how to use weapons.
Interviewer: Did you go to Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Jawhar: I wish I had, but it didn't work out. I didn't have the honor of going there.
Interviewer: Do you hope to return to Iraq?
Jawhar: No, what for? Palestine in closer.
[...]
Jawhar: We had a clash with the PLO. It's nothing to be ashamed of. What, they can kill us, but we can't kill them? It's only natural. They should prove whatever they accuse us of. Do they have any evidence? They have no evidence, but they issue verdicts.
Interviewer: Were you sentenced to death?
Jawhar: I got several death sentences and was also sentenced to life imprisonment. There's nothing to it. What's the problem? They can pile on as many sentences as they like. This is a sign of honor for me.
Interviewer: Do you consider yourself to be a terrorist?
Jawhar: Yes, a terrorist. What's the problem with that? If I want to terrorize the enemies of Allah, what's the problem with that?
[...]
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Iraqi Mojo's 7 Point Plan for Mid East Peace
I believe that several changes must happen in the Middle East before there is hope for peace there:
1) The US military must cease operations that might result in civilian casualties. I know that unlike many insurgents, the US military tries to minimize civilian casualties. I also know that many US soldiers are tired of Iraq and want very badly to go home. But as long as the US military is in Iraq, they should try harder to avoid civilian casualties and concentrate more on defending and training the Iraqi security forces. The US should also provide the Iraqi military with the best equipment. The Iraq Study Group found that Iraqi "Units lack equipment. They cannot carry out their missions without adequate equipment. Congress has been generous in funding requests for U.S. troops, but it has resisted fully funding Iraqi forces. The entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces for FY 2006 ($3 billion) is less than the United States currently spends in Iraq every two weeks."
2) The Kurds will eventually have their country, and the Arabs must accept this. So must the Turks. The Kurds already have a de facto Kurdish state within Iraq, and it is much more functional and peaceful than Baghdad. The Iraqi Kurds have autonomy, they have security, and their economy is growing. We never hear about bombings in Sulaymaniya, and even Kirkuk, where many Arabs live, is relatively safe. We don't see the division between Sunna and Shia among the Kurds.
3) There must be democracy in Iraq, and the people of Anbar must participate in the Iraqi government without fear of being murdered. All Arabs must support democracy in Iraq. The Saudis and other Sunni Arab states must stop supporting the Sunni insurgency. The good people of Anbar must rise up and support the Iraqi army and police. The Anbar Salvation Council must be involved in defending Anbar against terrorists and mafiosi. Insurgents who continue to murder the relatives of government employees must be found and arrested or killed. From the Iraq Study Group report: "Insurgents wage a campaign of intimidation against Sunni leaders — assassinating the family members of those who do participate in the government. Too often, insurgents tolerate and cooperate with al Qaeda, as they share a mutual interest in attacking U.S. and Shia forces. However, Sunni Arab tribal leaders in Anbar province recently took the positive step of agreeing to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters in their midst, and have started to take action on those commitments."
The Sunni Arabs in Iraq will not have complete control of Iraq, but they must be a part of the government if Iraq is to remain united. This does not mean that there will never be another Sunni Arab President or Prime Minister in Iraq. The big cheese in Iraq can be a Sunni Arab, as long he is good to the people. King Faisal was a Sunni from Saudi Arabia (before there was a Saudia Arabia), yet he is to this day one of the most popular leaders in Iraqi history. It seems that no tyrant was needed to 'suppress greater horrors' until 1963, after Qasim nationalized Iraq's oil.
4) Splitting Iraq between Sunna and Shia will not happen in Iraq because Iraqis do not want it to happen, but if Anbar becomes unmanageable; if insurgents in Anbar continue to attack Iraqi army and police, the Iraqi military and government will eventually abandon Anbar. Shia groups only started discussing the forming of a Shii state in 2005. Even if Anbar secedes from Iraq (or if the Shia secede), a split between Sunna and Shia in Baghdad and in the rest of Iraq is not feasible, because there are Shia towns in Sunni areas (like Dujail) and there are Sunni enclaves all over the south. Zeyad has some good maps that show the sectarian demographics in Iraq and Baghdad.
5) The Shia of Iraq will share the oil wealth with the people of Anbar, as long as Anbar remains part of Iraq. Of course oil is what the insurgents fight for. Oil brings money, and money brings power. So let us make sure that the people of Anbar understand that they will share the oil and the power in Iraq if they join the government.
6) Iran must stop its support for Shia militias, and the sectarian militias must stop murdering innocent Iraqis. All Shia must realize that Iraq can never be like Iran, and the Iranian regime and Iraqis who spent years in Iran must realize that a theocracy will not work in Iraq. It barely works in Iran, and the Iranian people are nowhere near being free. The Iranian regime is the Shii version of the Taliban, and I don't want to see it in Iraq. Baghdad Treasure has told me stories of fundamentalist Shia (presumably Mehdi army) killing people for the silliest reasons, like having a spare tire in your trunk - you are not relying solely on God if you carry a spare tire in your trunk. It seems that in 2006 elements of the Mehdi army have been emulating the Iranian regime, or maybe they are competing with al Qaeda in terms of religious zealotry. This kind of mentality will result in educated Iraqis fleeing Iraq, and the brain drain has already begun (although educated Iraqis have been fleeing Iraq since the 70s). It will take at least a generation for the fundamentalists in Iraq to change, and it will change only if the Shia masses become educated and truly free, without Iranian influence. Investments in education, free access to media, and a free economy in Iraq will hasten this important change that must take place in order for Iraq to succeed.
7) There must be a peaceful and just solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The US must pressure Israel to support an independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state. Many people have argued that the Palestinians could have had a state in 2000, but if I were Yasser Arafat, I would not have signed such an agreement. Barak's 'generous offers' were a slap in the face of Palestinians, who have already given up 78% of their historic homeland so that Jews can 'live in peace' in their own country where they are a majority of the population. Next time the US tries to mediate between Israel and Palestine, they should not send a closet zionist like Dennis Ross to referee. The formula should be simple: towns and villages with Arab majorities belong to Palestine, and towns with Jewish majorities belong to Israel. The Israeli settlers who think they can get away with attacking Palestinian farmers and human rights workers must move back to Tel Aviv, Brooklyn or wherever they came from. I would also argue that Gaza should be connected to the West Bank somehow - it is the only way for Palestine to be truly contiguous.
A one state solution is a dream that may be impossible to achieve. So we should be pragmatic in the short term and strive to achieve what is achievable. The other important and major issue is the Palestinian refugees scattered throughout the world. Palestinian refugees who have lost their homes in the last 60 years must be compensated. One would think that a portion of the billions of dollars in cash Israel receives every year can be used to fairly compensate the Palestinians who were not allowed to return to their homes in 1948, 1967, and during other wars. One would also think that Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq would allow Palestinian refugees who live there to buy property and become ordinary citizens of those countries. It would be a stimulus to the economies of those countries, after all. We must not allow this wound to fester any further. I believe that justice for the Palestinians coupled with democracy in Iraq will result in a Middle East peace that has never been seen before.
1) The US military must cease operations that might result in civilian casualties. I know that unlike many insurgents, the US military tries to minimize civilian casualties. I also know that many US soldiers are tired of Iraq and want very badly to go home. But as long as the US military is in Iraq, they should try harder to avoid civilian casualties and concentrate more on defending and training the Iraqi security forces. The US should also provide the Iraqi military with the best equipment. The Iraq Study Group found that Iraqi "Units lack equipment. They cannot carry out their missions without adequate equipment. Congress has been generous in funding requests for U.S. troops, but it has resisted fully funding Iraqi forces. The entire appropriation for Iraqi defense forces for FY 2006 ($3 billion) is less than the United States currently spends in Iraq every two weeks."
2) The Kurds will eventually have their country, and the Arabs must accept this. So must the Turks. The Kurds already have a de facto Kurdish state within Iraq, and it is much more functional and peaceful than Baghdad. The Iraqi Kurds have autonomy, they have security, and their economy is growing. We never hear about bombings in Sulaymaniya, and even Kirkuk, where many Arabs live, is relatively safe. We don't see the division between Sunna and Shia among the Kurds.
3) There must be democracy in Iraq, and the people of Anbar must participate in the Iraqi government without fear of being murdered. All Arabs must support democracy in Iraq. The Saudis and other Sunni Arab states must stop supporting the Sunni insurgency. The good people of Anbar must rise up and support the Iraqi army and police. The Anbar Salvation Council must be involved in defending Anbar against terrorists and mafiosi. Insurgents who continue to murder the relatives of government employees must be found and arrested or killed. From the Iraq Study Group report: "Insurgents wage a campaign of intimidation against Sunni leaders — assassinating the family members of those who do participate in the government. Too often, insurgents tolerate and cooperate with al Qaeda, as they share a mutual interest in attacking U.S. and Shia forces. However, Sunni Arab tribal leaders in Anbar province recently took the positive step of agreeing to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters in their midst, and have started to take action on those commitments."
The Sunni Arabs in Iraq will not have complete control of Iraq, but they must be a part of the government if Iraq is to remain united. This does not mean that there will never be another Sunni Arab President or Prime Minister in Iraq. The big cheese in Iraq can be a Sunni Arab, as long he is good to the people. King Faisal was a Sunni from Saudi Arabia (before there was a Saudia Arabia), yet he is to this day one of the most popular leaders in Iraqi history. It seems that no tyrant was needed to 'suppress greater horrors' until 1963, after Qasim nationalized Iraq's oil.
4) Splitting Iraq between Sunna and Shia will not happen in Iraq because Iraqis do not want it to happen, but if Anbar becomes unmanageable; if insurgents in Anbar continue to attack Iraqi army and police, the Iraqi military and government will eventually abandon Anbar. Shia groups only started discussing the forming of a Shii state in 2005. Even if Anbar secedes from Iraq (or if the Shia secede), a split between Sunna and Shia in Baghdad and in the rest of Iraq is not feasible, because there are Shia towns in Sunni areas (like Dujail) and there are Sunni enclaves all over the south. Zeyad has some good maps that show the sectarian demographics in Iraq and Baghdad.
5) The Shia of Iraq will share the oil wealth with the people of Anbar, as long as Anbar remains part of Iraq. Of course oil is what the insurgents fight for. Oil brings money, and money brings power. So let us make sure that the people of Anbar understand that they will share the oil and the power in Iraq if they join the government.
6) Iran must stop its support for Shia militias, and the sectarian militias must stop murdering innocent Iraqis. All Shia must realize that Iraq can never be like Iran, and the Iranian regime and Iraqis who spent years in Iran must realize that a theocracy will not work in Iraq. It barely works in Iran, and the Iranian people are nowhere near being free. The Iranian regime is the Shii version of the Taliban, and I don't want to see it in Iraq. Baghdad Treasure has told me stories of fundamentalist Shia (presumably Mehdi army) killing people for the silliest reasons, like having a spare tire in your trunk - you are not relying solely on God if you carry a spare tire in your trunk. It seems that in 2006 elements of the Mehdi army have been emulating the Iranian regime, or maybe they are competing with al Qaeda in terms of religious zealotry. This kind of mentality will result in educated Iraqis fleeing Iraq, and the brain drain has already begun (although educated Iraqis have been fleeing Iraq since the 70s). It will take at least a generation for the fundamentalists in Iraq to change, and it will change only if the Shia masses become educated and truly free, without Iranian influence. Investments in education, free access to media, and a free economy in Iraq will hasten this important change that must take place in order for Iraq to succeed.
7) There must be a peaceful and just solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel. The US must pressure Israel to support an independent, contiguous and viable Palestinian state. Many people have argued that the Palestinians could have had a state in 2000, but if I were Yasser Arafat, I would not have signed such an agreement. Barak's 'generous offers' were a slap in the face of Palestinians, who have already given up 78% of their historic homeland so that Jews can 'live in peace' in their own country where they are a majority of the population. Next time the US tries to mediate between Israel and Palestine, they should not send a closet zionist like Dennis Ross to referee. The formula should be simple: towns and villages with Arab majorities belong to Palestine, and towns with Jewish majorities belong to Israel. The Israeli settlers who think they can get away with attacking Palestinian farmers and human rights workers must move back to Tel Aviv, Brooklyn or wherever they came from. I would also argue that Gaza should be connected to the West Bank somehow - it is the only way for Palestine to be truly contiguous.
A one state solution is a dream that may be impossible to achieve. So we should be pragmatic in the short term and strive to achieve what is achievable. The other important and major issue is the Palestinian refugees scattered throughout the world. Palestinian refugees who have lost their homes in the last 60 years must be compensated. One would think that a portion of the billions of dollars in cash Israel receives every year can be used to fairly compensate the Palestinians who were not allowed to return to their homes in 1948, 1967, and during other wars. One would also think that Arab countries like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq would allow Palestinian refugees who live there to buy property and become ordinary citizens of those countries. It would be a stimulus to the economies of those countries, after all. We must not allow this wound to fester any further. I believe that justice for the Palestinians coupled with democracy in Iraq will result in a Middle East peace that has never been seen before.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Israeli settlements will lead to one state solution
Below is more evidence that Americans' perceptions of the conflict in Palestine have been changing over the years, albeit rather slowly. I am always pleasantly surprised to see honest reporting on Palestine in mainstream American media.
Philip Weiss notes "The American lib-left seems to be getting the news that the two-state-solution is having its death rattles (3 years of death rattles, unusual case doctor). Joe Klein wants sanctions. And here’s the Nation on the crumbling of the Palestinian Authority. It is unusual to read such a starkly-honest statement of the situation in even a liberal American publication. Roane Carey in the latest Nation:
Reading that in The Nation, a liberal magazine, was not as surprising as reading this in Time:
It is ironic that the continued building of settlements on Palestinian territory, which right-wing Jews and Christians insist is Israel's right, would lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state, assuming Israel eventually gives those Palestinians living on occupied territory the right to vote in Israeli elections, and assuming Palestinians continue to produce offspring at a faster rate than Israelis.
The international community, including many Jews, will not support an apartheid state, so when will the state of apartheid end? Will it be a one state solution in which all Palestinians have the same rights as Jews, or will it be a two state solution?
Thanks tgia for linking to Mondoweiss.
Philip Weiss notes "The American lib-left seems to be getting the news that the two-state-solution is having its death rattles (3 years of death rattles, unusual case doctor). Joe Klein wants sanctions. And here’s the Nation on the crumbling of the Palestinian Authority. It is unusual to read such a starkly-honest statement of the situation in even a liberal American publication. Roane Carey in the latest Nation:
...for all practical purposes, there is only one nation between the Jordan and the sea, composed of roughly equal numbers of Palestinians and Jews. Then Israel will "face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights," former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned when he was still in office, "and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." So Israel will have to confront its own existential dilemma: are the settlements really worth retaining if it means the eventual end of Zionism?
Reading that in The Nation, a liberal magazine, was not as surprising as reading this in Time:
...while I agree that the Obama negotiators have been naive and incompetent in dealing with Likud intransigence, it's also clear that if it's "nonsense" to ask the Israelis to stop building settlements in East Jerusalem--universally recognized as Palestine's capital in a two-state solution (except by the Neocons and the Likudniks)--then the Netanyahu government isn't at all interested in peace.
It is ironic that the continued building of settlements on Palestinian territory, which right-wing Jews and Christians insist is Israel's right, would lead to the end of Israel as a Jewish state, assuming Israel eventually gives those Palestinians living on occupied territory the right to vote in Israeli elections, and assuming Palestinians continue to produce offspring at a faster rate than Israelis.
The international community, including many Jews, will not support an apartheid state, so when will the state of apartheid end? Will it be a one state solution in which all Palestinians have the same rights as Jews, or will it be a two state solution?
Thanks tgia for linking to Mondoweiss.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Rationalizing Ethnic Cleansing on Israel's B-day
I have argued before that occupation is not necessarily the problem, that injustice during occupation is the problem. Palestine was occupied for centuries before the Zionist influx, and yet Palestinians were not dispossessed during those many centuries of British, Ottoman, and Arab rule. Here I will argue that statelessness is not necessarily the problem, but the injustice that happens during statelessness is the problem. In this article a Zionut attempts to rationalize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, to make room for a Jewish state, and says that seeking to establish a Palestinian state is an: "Anti-Semitic trick":
Apparently the Palestinians must move to other Arab lands, and Arab countries must accept them and not complain. Otherwise we are anti-Semitic. Apparently he doesn't realize that Basques, Catalonians, Corsicans, and Scots are represented proportionally in the governments that rule them, that they have not been subjected to ethnic cleansing and their land has not been stolen from them.
This is a good example of how some right wing Zionists try to justify their destruction of Palestine. It is hasbara at its worst. It is injustice that many Americans support or would rather ignore. The Palestinians have been occupied and stateless before the Zionuts expelled most of them from their homes. But this is Israel's "manifest destiny" and we must accept it whether we like it or not. It makes me sick.
Thanks tgia for posting the article.
'The Kurds, for example, a people boasting a rich history and numbering 25 million souls, are forced to get by without a state of their own. The Basques, Catalonians, Corsicans, and Scots also have no state. Even the Native Americans, Flemish, the Copts and the Maronites have no state. Therefore, it is quite odd that it is precisely the absence of a Palestinian state that preoccupies the international community and the Israeli consciousness.
But in fact, it’s not so odd. The demand for the establishment of a Palestinian state, speaking of the recent Durban II conference, is another type of anti-Semitic trick against us. With all the giant states in the Middle East, it is the Jewish State that is required to share with the Palestinians the little territory that we have. Instead of our neighboring countries crowding a little more in favor of their repressed brethren, we are the only ones required to make do with less territory.
All the archeological and biblical findings prove that we were here much before them, yet the contemporary narrative insists on equality of historical rights between us.'
Apparently the Palestinians must move to other Arab lands, and Arab countries must accept them and not complain. Otherwise we are anti-Semitic. Apparently he doesn't realize that Basques, Catalonians, Corsicans, and Scots are represented proportionally in the governments that rule them, that they have not been subjected to ethnic cleansing and their land has not been stolen from them.
This is a good example of how some right wing Zionists try to justify their destruction of Palestine. It is hasbara at its worst. It is injustice that many Americans support or would rather ignore. The Palestinians have been occupied and stateless before the Zionuts expelled most of them from their homes. But this is Israel's "manifest destiny" and we must accept it whether we like it or not. It makes me sick.
Thanks tgia for posting the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)