[Israel, Palestine] Election

[mayer]

EDIT:


Also

Why didnt' you engage with any of the technicalities which were earlier discussed in this thread. Of Palestinian Elections, Peace Negotiations and suchlike.


It's a lot easier to bleat "Wall" and "Occupation" rather than actually discuss any of the difficult, important issues at hand for the people involved which are being negotiated and changed on the ground whilst you stick to your doctrinaire high ground, safe from suicide bombs and Israeli incursions.

[mayer]

More Speak Your Brains, this time on the talks in London.

At least this meeting will give President Abbas the opportunity to express his view to other state leaders. However, with Israel failing to send a representative, a very clear message is made. Israel will nominally give up some land in Gaza and grab as much land as possible on the West Bank.

The USA will make a nominal protest, praise Israel's democratic system of government, and then wonder why the Arabs hate and distrust Americans and everything to do with America. Israel must exist but only within its UN designated 1948 borders. Those borders must be formally recognised and guaranteed by all Middle East countries.

John Andrews, London England

What can be achieved? I don't think very much, as Israel is not attending. After all it's them occupying Palestinian land, not the other way round.

Silvio Kalich, London

*sIgh*

It was agreed by both sides (and mediators) that Israel should not send a representative, as to not deflect the focus of the talks (Palestinian reforms and economic and political assistance from the EU/US/World Bank), and as also to not preempt genuine negotiations in the future.


But why let the truth get in the way of the usual blabbering eh?

[Evil Knevil]

Tried to find an appropriate thread to bump:
Jewish extremists attempt to sabotage Gaza withdrawal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4420875.stm

How stable do you think the Sharon Government is? Will it be able to stand up to pressure from the militant minority?

[mayer]

How stable do you think the Sharon Government is? Will it be able to stand up to pressure from the militant minority?

Well, the Sharon Government (and any Israeli government) is pretty unstable, and they all will be barring some major constitutional and electoral reforms.

But I don't think the extremists threatening to disrupt Gaza withdrawal will succeed. Once the budget went through the Knesset it's more or less set in stone, and the extremists don't have a chance.

The only historical parallel that comes to mind is the Sinai withdrawal, which, despite equal opposition from deluded advocates of a "Greater Israel", went ahead, with the Israeli Army using force to relocate those Israelis who refused to move voluntarily.

[Slackboy]

Sorry to quote myself like this but I always feel that the following needs to be said whenever discussions about the Middle East are on the go. (It's from the dead-pope thread by the way.)

I also haven't really read the posts in this thread that closely so sorry if it's not relevant or has already been covered. I'm not saying that I have any greater knowledge than anyone else on here, just that I don't think that there are any correct interpretations over what is right and wrong with the situation over there.

Whatever the "truth" actually is about what's happening in the Middle East, can we all at least agree on one thing: that it's all horrendously complicated and that there are no simple answers? I mean such as "it's all their fault" or "no, it's their fault" or "the [sideA] are much worse than the [sideB] these days" since the situation over there isn't that simple and it never will be.

If I have any objections about [someone]'s post it's that it seems to needlessly oversimplify a situation that I don't believe he, or anyone else in the world, has enough information or understanding on to sum up in such a way. In fact I don't believe that it is possible to sum up any part of human history in such a way, and it's a great act of folly to believe that such a thing is possible. In my opinion, that's certainly not the kind of collective attitude that will ever lead to a solution to that particular problem in our lifetimes.

The thing is it puts me in the uncomfortable position of almost saying that we shouldn't discuss news reports that are coming out of the Middle East since (from what I can see) these will have fewer sources from one side than from other. I'm not saying that specific events shouldn't be discussed, just that we need to acknowledge that there will always be some pertinent information about the situation that we will not have access to, and we need to somehow take that into account when we discuss it. Even if that is a very difficult thing to do.

[mayer]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered a range of assistance to the Palestinians after talks in Ramallah.

Nowt wrong with that, but I think Ariel Sharon should reciprocate and offer a range of assistance to the Chechnyans to make it evens.

[Some Herbert]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered a range of assistance to the Palestinians after talks in Ramallah.

Nowt wrong with that, but I think Ariel Sharon should reciprocate and offer a range of assistance to the Chechnyans to make it evens.

Yes, why not? After all, ordinary Chechens are no more responsible for the actions of a few extremists than are ordinary Palestinians. But try telling that to either Putin or Sharon, who just lump them all together as "terrorists". Which makes it so much more palatable to the electorate when they indescriminately destroy their homes and murder their people.

[mayer]

After all, ordinary Chechens are no more responsible for the actions of a few extremists than are ordinary Palestinians. But try telling that to either Putin or Sharon, who just lump them all together as "terrorists". Which makes it so much more palatable to the electorate when they indescriminately destroy their homes and murder their people.

Indeed *agrees*.

Yes, why not?

Well, that's an obvious one. There isn't any where near as much international pressure or coverage of the situation in Chechnya forcing  the input and involvement of external Sovereign nations as their is in Chechnya, despite the difference in the intensity of both conflicts.


The Second Intifada up to August 2004

* About 1,001 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks in the al-Aqsa Intifada. Most of them (more than 75%) are civilians.
   * Palestinians sources claim that 2,736 Palestinians were killed in the intifada.
   * The Shin Bet knows of 2,124 Palestinians killed, and it has their names.
   * Out of the 2,124 dead, 1414 were combatants (armed men and\or "terrorists"), this is about two thirds (66%). The number of casualties of each organization:
         o 466 Hamas members were killed.
         o 408 Fatah's Tanzim and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades were killed.
         o 205 Palestinian Islamic Jihad were killed.
         o 334 of Arafat's guard Force 17, the Palestinian police and the General Intelligence were killed.

(Source, Wikipedia. The figure of Palestinian deaths I've read elswhere is nearer 4,000 though, and the civilian/military breakdown is of course difficult and contentious.)


Chechyna

Since 1994 over 200,000 insurgents and civilians have been killed

.


Another more inconclusive statistic,
Topics mentioning "Israel" on VWs = Search found 104 matches
Topics mentioning "Chechnya" on VWs = Search found 7 matches.


Israel/the rest of the world can't/won't get involveed in Chechnya the same way the Quartet are getting involved in the Territories, because the latter is fine subject for the making of political hay, and the former relatively ignored.

[Some Herbert]

There isn't any where near as much international pressure or coverage of the situation in Chechnya forcing  the input and involvement of external Sovereign nations as their is in Chechnya, despite the difference in the intensity of both conflicts.

Surely this is due to the huge difference in size and power between Russia and Israel? Russia also wields a veto in the UN Security Council, whereas Israel can only do so indirectly through its proxy, the United States. There has been pressure on Russia to limit its atrocities in Chechnya, but Russia can effectively do what it wants, especially now that other countries have established a precedent for ignoring international law whenever it suits them. Also, America's "war on terror" gives both Russia and Israel a licence to claim that they too are waging wars on terrorism, and no atrocity on their part will be too great to remove the threat.

It's sometimes said that Israel is "unfairly" criticised because of widespread anti-semitism. This might be true in some cases, but it's an absurd and paranoid generalisation that does Israel no favours at all.

[mayer]

Surely this is due to the huge difference in size and power between Russia and Israel?

I'd agree with that, though surely that shouldn't affect the free media in the way it does. If anything the difference in size/scale/power should mean more attention paid to events in Eastern Europe than the Middle East?

It's sometimes said that Israel is "unfairly" criticised because of widespread anti-semitism. This might be true in some cases, but it's an absurd and paranoid generalisation that does Israel no favours at all.

I agree with that fully.

My major point of contention is that Israel is not unfairly, but disproportionately criticised, and not because of anti-semitism. I think it's just a result of some causes being more "popular" and "accessible" than others.

The media has over-simplfied the Middle East conflict to the point of banality ("give them back their land!") with easily defined goodies (the impoverished Palestinians) and baddies (fat Sharon and the muderous stealing ZIonists).

Regarding Eastern Europe the coverage is more complex, more technical, and far less partisan. The British people are constantly bombarded with Ola Geurin interviews with the families of dead Palestinians, whilst two hundred times as many Chechnyan children have been killed, with much less fanfare.

Again, little of this is to do with antisemitism, but with what I guess I could crudely call which humanitarian crisis is more "fashionable", irresepective of context and scale.

[mayer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4515715.stm

The Fatah movement founded by Yasser Arafat is in the lead over Islamist movement Hamas in Palestinian local elections, preliminary results suggest.

The Election Commission said Fatah won control of 50 of 84 municipalities in the West Bank and Gaza to 28 for Hamas in the latest round of local voting.

Smaller factions took four councils, with two municipalities undecided.

Now that's a succesful election!

[Saturday Boy]

It's going to be a big summer.

Palestinian General elections (good luck to Fatah from moi).

Gaza Withdrawal (if any Settler cunts shoot a single bullet at an Israeli soldier then I say go in hard... I don't think that'll happen though, I figure it'll be a repeat of the Sinai withdrawal, some protests, some minor kicking and wailing, but ultimately not too much of a divide in the country)

A new government? This one's lasted forever, in Israeli terms, and Sharon's not getting any younger or slimmer. There's pressure on the Labour Party to leave the coalition after the Engagement Plan is carried out. Now Sharanksy's gone, the majority of the coalition is ever-decreasing.

A new Labour leader? Primaries coming soon (June 28); Barak wants back in, Ben Eliezer always wants in, but how about some new blood? Amir Peretz may be disqualified. Either way it won't be a uniting decision, and the party could end up all split again, which would be a shame. Peres is still going to stand, and probably win, but the poor old fool should really retire.

There's been an energy agreement with Egypt (a gas deal), and some slight softening of tension in the region. There's the unpredictable Lebanon factor at the minute too of course.



"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" - Isiah

[Dusty Gozongas]

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" - Isiah

Like Socialism, it sounds good but it hasn't been tried yet ;)

[mayer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4129448.stm

Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been appointed to succeed him.

[mayer]

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=gaza


It's happening then.

[Evil Knevil]

Get the fuck out of East Jerusalem then

[mayer]

That's remarkably helpful. Cheers.

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

Get the fuck out of East Jerusalem then

Are you going to elaborate on that at all, or just leave it as it is?

For better or for worse, the way I've understood it is that these settlements were on non-Israeli land and shouldn't have been there in the first place.  This doesn't stop me feeling sorry for the settlers being made to leave as it seems they were fed the line that forming settlements in certain places made them better citizens and that doing so would further the cause of their country.  I can see why they might feel that their government has stabbed them in the back by enforcing these withdrawals, even though with my limited knowledge of the matter, they shouldn't have settled on Palestinian land.

[smoker]

some of them are 2nd or 3rd generation in those homes aren't they? they don't have the right to be there and they must leave but it's hard not to be sympathetic, particulalry since i imagine most of them are peace-loving and just want to get along with their neighbours

[thepuffpastryhangman]

...with their Jewish neighbours yes...

At a friend's last night I saw ITN news (don't have TV at home and wouldn't choose ITN anyway, but hey) when covering this story the report was worded (re settlers praying) "...their God."
Not having heard this applied to Judaism previously (it's usually to minority or 'oddball' religions, no?) I wondered if this was due to some kinda PC directive whereby everyone's God(s) are to be labled 'their God' with none in particular being the definitive 'God'.
Personally it seems a sensible step, maybe it's been like this for a while and I've simply missed it, dunno. And I wonder if it'll incur any backlash, as it's affording the established religions no more cred. than peeps who decide to worship, I dunno, 'their God' the tooth fairy for example.
Or maybe there's a list of established God figures on an ITN 'bonafide God options' list, dunno.

[aaaaaaaaaargh!]

...with their Jewish neighbours yes...

Yeah, I mean there's no way that they could ever get on with non-Jewish people is there?  As for me, well I just ignore all the non-white people where I live...........

[thepuffpastryhangman]

So far so...

[mayer]

...with their Jewish neighbours yes...

Jews got on fine in many Arab countries for centuries, before they were (forcably) removed from their homes. I get on with all my non-Jewish neighbours myself.

when covering this story the report was worded (re settlers praying) "...their God."

That's to imply heavily that the settlers are nutbars in many cases (sometimes true), that their religious claims are less valid than religious Muslim claims to the land (that's just prejudice), and that Judaism is a jokey spinoff religion (meh, only as much as Christianity and Islam are).

For better or for worse, the way I've understood it is that these settlements were on non-Israeli land and shouldn't have been there in the first place.

I'd sort of agree with that. That they shouldn't have been there - yes, because it's really complicated the situation in the region more than it was, and is such a drain on resources.

I don't see why it's non-Israeli land though. It was British land till 1948, then Egyptian land till 1967 when Israel invaded and took it from the Egyptians. The Gaza strip has never been under Palestinian control, run by Palestinians, in anything approaching modern times.

In fact, apart from the UN Partition Plan (which the Arab nations rejected) the Israelis are the only group who have ever let Palestinians run their own affairs in Palestine, in 1993- and shortly, now again in Gaza. The Egyptians (Gaza Strip) and Jordanians (West Bank) thrawrted Palestinian self-determination to use the Palestinian people as a pawn against Israel from 1948-1967.

When does invaded land become your own? Israel have been in Gaza for 35 years, that's not really long enough I guess. But when did Americans become Americans and not Occupiers? It's a strange one.

Hmmm... I need a coffee before I post any more!

[Pinball]

It's a terribly difficult question. I don't buy the "God gave us the land" argument, but then who should have it?? On balance, I think the Palestinians deserve it more than a bunch of "settlers" who move in under Israeli army protection and nicked the most fertile land. Longer term, the Palestinians are out-reproducing the Jews in Israel anyway, so Arabs there will ultimately become a majority I guess.

Should the American Indians take back US land/New York etc? Maoris in New Zealand? Aboriginals in Australia? Catholics in Northern Ireland (Queen Elizabeth I ethnically cleansed them to the south when she sent in the Prostestants to the north)? Difficult.

[mayer]

To clarify. I think there should be a Palestinian State on all of the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem.

But given the history of those areas, and the way nationhood works in general the claim that these are "Palestinian lands" or "non-Israeli lands" seems somewhat empty, especially when compared with the plight of other indigenous peoples the world over who aren't judged to have such an inseperable connection to "their" land and Independence.


-People fling terms like "Palestine" around, but rarely define them, which can cause unnecessary fighting and bitching.
-Palestine can mean all of British Mandate Palestine (Israel, Gaza, West Bank and [trans-]Jordan)
-Palestine can mean Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem.
-Palestine can mean Gaza, West Bank, and Israel.

"Palestinians are no strangers to compromise. In the 1993 Oslo Accords, we agreed to recognize Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine and to establish a Palestinian state on only 22 percent." -- Saeb Erekat, Chief Palestinian negotiator, 5 August 2000

Israeli sovereignty over 78 of "historic Palestine"? That's just fatuous isn't it?


From Wikipedia:

The term Palestine may refer to:

- The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, sometimes collectively referred to as the "Palestinian territories".

- The Palestinian National Authority, governing parts of these territories.
Palestine (region): A geographical region in the Middle East, centered on Jerusalem. It is claimed by Palestinians and (under the name Eretz Israel) Jews as their ancestral home.

- The State of Palestine, declared by the PLO in Algiers in 1988.

- A proposed Palestinian state.

I think people should be plain and clear in what they mean when they use the word, to prevent both misunderstanding and wilful deception.

[mayer]

On balance, I think the Palestinians deserve it more than a bunch of "settlers" who move in under Israeli army protection and nicked the most fertile land.

I agree.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

I doubt, aaaaaaaaargh and mayer, there exists such economic disparity between yourselves and your ethnically or theologically diverse neighbours.

CIA figures -

Israel - GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $20,800 (2004 est.)

Gaza strip - GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $600 (2003 est.)

[Blumf]

Is their any resource plotting the ownership of the Israeli region from Moses to today? (actually, who was there before Moses?)

I've got nothing but vague ideas about who 'owned' what, when.

Something like this:

* Moses leads his people to the area.
* Alexander the great goes here?
* Romans take it over but pretty much leave the locals to it. Some bearded guy does something.
* ...um...
* Islam pops up.
* ...um...
* Crusades, middle-eastern Muslims fight over the area with European Christians
* Persian empire (?)
* British empire
* Late 1940s UN hands it over to Jewish population
* 1967 and all that
* Today

Now I'm pretty sure that's as incorrect as Bernard Manning's views on blacks, but what is the true story?

[mayer]

But... who's fault is that?

Not just the Israelis, certainly.


Do you know how much money the G8 pledged to the Palestinians at the recent summit? Do you know what that works out per head? Do you know what the figures are per African?

The Palestinians have been fucked by so many people it's unreal but

i) it's only when they start killing people that the world started to care - terrorism does work

ii) The Israelis weren't the first or last to fuck them, and it's unhelpful to claim otherwise, because it won't solve anything.

[fanny splendid]

Yeah, my lawyers are in touch with the Danish, Norwegian, Italian, French, and German governments right at this moment, in my search for reparations. In fact anyone who has ever done anything to harm my economic, sorry I mean civil rights, better watch out.