Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

It occurs to me, reading this thread here in TLF, that the 'Israel problem' might be about to get worse. It is a very complicated situation and both sides have genuine grievances, but it must be even more important than ever, in light of our so-called 'war on terror' to help solve this problem in Israel that encourages many people to join terrorist organisations. It is also seen as an ongoing archetype of unsavoury US involvement abroad by many in the international community.

What is the solution? I am inclined to think that it must necessairly involve the Israelis changing their whole stance on the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and to achieve that there will have to be considerable pressure from the US I would say.

What is the US attitude to Israel, by which I mean, what does the average merkin feel about the country, the history of brutality by both sides and the US governments financial support of the state of Israel?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

The solution to the Israel Problem is one that needs to look very much at the Northern Irish Peace Process.

The key to it is that both sides have to accept that they are both in the worng. Israel have killed hundreds of innocent and Palestine have killed hundreds of innocents. Until this recognition actually comes into the minds of both sides progress won't really be found.

The next thing that has too come is the Secuirty Council to make a point of enforcing UN Resolution 242 , which for too long has been ignored.

The occupied territories (which I believe CNN and the BBC have to call Jewish Settlements now) have to be demilitarised and repopulated with the displaced population. This is the first step and key to solving the problem.

Next comes the problem with Jerusalem and the Mount. I think both sides need too look at Byzantine Turkey to learn how Islam, Judaeism and Christendom can live and worship side by side in peace.

The real irony in the religious question is that both the ISlamic faith and Judaeism come from the same Abrahamic bloodline and both reference the Torah in their belief system. The only difference is that the Jewish faith uses just the Torah and Islam uses it and the Koran in the same way that Christendom uses the Torah (The Old Testament) and the New Testament. Strangely though Christendom has not started a war with Judaeism over its rejection of Christ.

My final point is that whilst sitting here typing I am watching Sky News. Benjamin whtsisname (can't spell it) is on and he is starngely reminding me of the DUP (and Ian Paisley talking about Gerry Adams), when talking about Arafat.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

Arafat was offered more than anyone would have imagined not too long ago, and he spat in the face of it. He's not interested in a peaceful solution. He has stated many times his objective is the eradication of Israel, and his behavior backs up his words. What more reason does Israel need to defend itself?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Ok G, I can see this point, but what is the solution exactly? Do you agree with the Security Council Resolution that the occupation of palestinian territory was illegal?

Also G, what about the fact of Arafats condemnation of the suicde bombings by Hamaas this weekend? I aks only because in NI it was a pretty important when Gerry Adams actually condemned terrorist action as opposed to saying 'I understand what lead them to do it'. Do you really beleive that Arafat has full charge of Hamaas? What basis do you have for that? NB: These are not flames just questions.

Finally, and I'm sorry to have to say this but it make me giggle because the boots on the other foot. 'What would you do too solve the situation?'

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

Not taking it as a flame at all. We're civil in here.

I think 35 year old issues are moot in the face of Arafat insisting Israel must be eradicated. If there's one thing I've learned in life: you don't judge people based on their words, you judge them based on how consistent their actions are with their words. Arafat condemns the bombings, alledgedly jails some suspects, but this is all stuff we've seen before. It's hard to tell which side of his mouth he's talking out of at times.

I don't know enough to say whether his span of control over Hamas is enough to completely curb the persitent attacks. I do know that prevailing mindset is more than enough reason for Israel to take up arms and defend itself.

When you look at the positions taken at the negotiations table, Israel was willing to go the extra step in resolving the crises. What they've received in return is a never-ending series of suicide bombings, supported by inflammatory rhetoric from Arafat and others. When have you heard any Israeli official call for the eradication of the Palestinians?

It's a shame that Hamas probably won't fit into the definition of "global-reaching" terrorst organizations like al-q'aeda.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35783

Just read this on the msn site:

quote:

---

ISRAEL DECLARES 'TOTAL WAR' ON TERRORISM
The Israeli premier has announced a policy of total war on terrorists. Ariel Sharon is comparing Israel's campaign to that waged by the United States against Osama bin Laden. Sharon claims Yasser Arafat is responsible for terrorism against Israel, and says his country will now act with all the means at its disposal. He said: "Just as the United States acts in its battle against world terror, under the brave leader of President Bush, just as it acts with all its strength, so shall we do - with all the means at our disposal." He has been speaking before a meeting being held to decide on the response to a spate of suicide attacks and shootings by Palestinian militants. The series of attacks have killed 26 people in Israel since Saturday. Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Israeli helicopters have struck a Palestinian police building in the northern town of Jenin, Palestinians said. Earlier Israeli helicopter gunships fired nine missiles near Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Gaza City. About 110 members of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups have been rounded up in a sweep that began on Sunday. The Israeli leader did not say exactly what further steps would be taken, but held Arafat directly responsible. He said Israel would "chase after those responsible for terror: those who carry it out, and those who assist, and they will pay the price."

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

I agree with Smug on his point about the NI situation in comparison. Martin McGuiness is the Education Minister in the Northern Assembly and everyone knows he was on the Army Council of the IRA.

I think the Israel/Palestine situation can learn alot from NI and George Mitchell. Somebody needs to go in there and to coin a phrase 'bang their heads together'.

ON the points G raised which in essence I believe was 'actions speak louder tha words'. The problem with this is that Arafat is being directly linked to things that I think cannot be directly linked to him. The real problem is that Ariel Sharon has as much baggage and history in the whole situation too, he makes US hawks look like doves.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

The problem is not Arafat. The problem is the Arab street.

Arafat very likely would have accepted the offer made to him in Oslo if he had the power to do so. He has been two very different men, true, but that's due to the fact that he's had to appease two very different groups of people. To the world at large, he has to seem like a peacemaker. To the people who give him his REAL power, though, he has to appear to be a warrior against Israel. Ironcially, Arafat is in very much the same position vis-a-vis his own people that the US is in vis-a-vis Islamic fundamentalists. Having stirred a nest of vipers for our own political reasons, we now find that the snakes are out of our control.

Would Arafat LIKE to end the war against Israel, and settle down as the peaceful leader of a unified Palestine in the occupied territories? Probably. But he can't, because any solution he accepts will immediately lead to his execution by his own "constituents." There is NO question where the average Palestinian now stands on the Israel question. Opinion polls show that the phemomenon we witness on TV is an accurate representation of reality. They don't want sovereignty. They want dead Israelis.

There are, of course, people on the Israeli right who are just about as bad. The difference is, they don't constitute a majority of the population. Sharon is no peacemaker, but even he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide.

The one aspect of a solution which I immediately recommend is this: the US position of "neutrality" needs to be abandoned tut suite. There is no point in pretending, in the wake of Oslo, that the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are equally committed "partners for peace."

Pray for Melon's safety.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by CHiPsJr
Sharon is no peacemaker, but even he doesn't explicitly advocate genocide.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location:
Posts: 2701

2 tigers stuck in a cage, 1 is going to fall..........

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deadpool
2 tigers stuck in a cage, 1 is going to fall..........

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location:
Posts: 2701

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky


don't be such a pessimist

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deadpool
It would have probably been better if Ahud Barak was still in office.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deadpool

You know why this has escalated into its current state? Cause Arafat is stupid and Sharon is a moron. It would have probably been better if Ahud Barak was still in office.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

An intersting scenario now seems to panning out I see.

Sharon has given an ultimatum to Arafat saying he MUST arrest those repsonsible and destory the terror networks. And yet in the same breath he is restricting the movemnet of the Paletsinian Forces under Arafats command to the point that they would be unable to arrest anyone even if they wanted to.

As one meber of the Israeli cabinet (Labour memebr) said, Sharon seems inetnt on 'conflict'.

I gove the Israeli coaltion government a week of this before it implodes spectacularly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 10218

It won't matter, Israel knows that Arafat can't possibly respond to their demand, just like the Taliban wasn't going to turn over bin Laden, and Hussein won't let inspectors back in his country. For Arafat to actually go around rousting and arresting "terrorists" would completely contradict the stated goal of the PLF: destruction of Israel. Arafat, of course, never says that in English, only his native tongue. I don't believe the reports that he has 131 "in custody". If he does, they are probably adulterers and thieves.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location:
Posts: 996

***
From chips jr

The problem is not Arafat. The problem is the Arab street.

Arafat very likely would have accepted the offer made to him ... are out of our control.

[B]Would Arafat LIKE to end the war against Israel, and settle down as the peaceful leader of a unified Palestine in the occupied territories? Probably. But he can't, because any solution he accepts will immediately lead to his execution by his own "constituents." There is NO question where the average Palestinian now stands on the Israel question. Opinion polls show that the phemomenon we witness on TV is an accurate representation of reality. They don't want sovereignty. They want dead Israelis. [B/]
****
Agreed.


In all honesty, that Barak had some backing and Arafat had some backing in the spring of 2000.

Personally I think the biggest part of this problem in the peace talks that were held the summer of 2000. The Camp David Talks, I think.

The Clinton administration wanted to "seal the deal" before leaving office, I personally think to ensure that a legacy was left. For this reason, it pushed things at too fast of a rate, pushing for concessions that were 1/ politically unacceptible to most Israelis at that point in time, though if htey'd had time to get used to they may have been okay. 2/any final settlement at that time would have been politically unacceptible to the Palestinians.

Point is the timing was absolutely horrible. Clearly the solutions proposed would not have popular backing to work. Arafat COULDN't Have signed them. He'd have been ousted, or the status quo would occur. Either way, he lost a lot of legitimacy. and the same for Barak. He either lost face as a "peace" leader, or he lost face for being too pacifist.

probably the biggest mistake of the clinton admin. I believe that history will judge it very harshly.

Barak was forced into the position of looking too weak, and naturally being ousted. he wasted all his poltiical capital. IT also meant that, with such a generous offer being rebuked, the Israeli populous would tire of the peace process and naturally move to the right next elections

Arafat was forced into the same position: either he would look weak and not get backing for the solution, or he would refuse the deal, meaning that the Peace process was going to break down, and putting him in a VERY awkward position as well.

I just...I can't get Clinton's timing. It was awful. He's a smart man and should have handled that better. I was very disappointed. A lot of progress should be made in the last 20 years, but one of the first rules in negotiations is not to get hopes higher than they can be fulfilled. It is partly good because it may force the other side into concessions, but it is a double-edged sword that can backfire in a situation where you NEED public backing and you DO NOT want a zero sum game. It also makes future negotiating sessions and positive movement impossible in the future.

Clinton was trying to use his sway to pressure the leaders into making a bargain. He perhaps had that power, but he didn't have the power to get the Israeli and palestinian people into the bargain in teh same way. He should have known that they weren't ready. Shit, even I knew that, and I don't know much of anything.

i was very worried before that meeting. Most people around me were like "This is great! it's going to be peace in the middle east." and when asked what i thought would happen i responded, "nothing good." and I'd explain it and people would get uncomfortable, because they didn't want to hear it. They didn't want to believe. they wanted to think it was in the bag.
and it was generally inappropriate for me to comment anyway considering my position (22 year old grad student at the time) versus theirs (what ever it was it was generally more respected/important than mine) so it was all very comfortable. Usually, i think they kind of knew i was right, but they were supporting the president, caught up in the whirlwind, and not ready to accept such information. There were people agreed with me, but it wasn't a particularly popular opinion.

*sigh*

it was a bad, egotistical mistake, I'm afraid. not that the world is deterministic, many things could have happened differently and it could have evolved different but it didn't.

THat summer meeting erased the peace process. to get back where they were, they have to start over and rebuild trust. it has to get so bad that they are sick of war and that the PEOPLE want to stop. so that the PEOPLE are tired. and it is a very sad, horrible thing.

hope this makes sense.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 19818

Thanks Indigo, I feel educated.

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location:
Posts: 996

I just can't tell if that's sarcasm or not...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Indigo
I just can't tell if that's sarcasm or not...

---

I don't feel educated

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location:
Posts: 996

I still don't know if i'm being insulted or not.

I think it is best if I don't know. My fragile ego might break leaving only the id and the super ego and that'd be just plain ugly.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Denver
Posts: 19818

No, that was an honest thank yuo. I find your post a very enlightening explanation.

-m

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged