The lie of Palestine

[Violet_Crumble]

To my Palestinian friends who are prisoners of this election campaign, good wishes.

May you have candidates you can stomach. May their corruption not exceed tolerable levels. May your radicals take a break from betraying your interests and demolishing your future.


And while we're on the subject, may you someday recover from the disease you caught from us.

Not the one you think. Not the occupation. You may well ascribe your entire syndrome, all your torments, to the occupation - the entirety of your misery, your grief, your failures, your pariahdom.

But here's a troubling thought. Trust me, after the occupation ends, the disease will still be there.

It is the dreamer's disease, and it breeds on lies, the lies we tell ourselves about ourselves and the other side. The lies we tell to make ourselves feel better about ourselves. The lies we tell to make it easier on the conscience when we see the other side bleeding in the street.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/664106.html

[tatertop]

1. Ask The Beast why he likes being called The Beast.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. Read the whole Burston article.

NT

[Wordie]

2. Link doesn't work...is it just on my end? n/t

[Scurrilous]

3. The link works for me. n/t

[Wordie]

4. Now it works (restarted)....Whoops. Spoke too soon.

Has anyone else been having difficulties with Haaretz lately? My browser either sends me to an empty page, or it crashes. This seems to be happening pretty frequently with Haaretz. :(

[Wordie]

5. Violet...

The editorial was intense, and obviously written by a person who is seeking an answer to all the turmoil and conflict that has gone on too long. I think it was you who made the insightful observation just a few days ago that the two sides in so many ways are but mirror images of each other. That resonated with me at the time; the article seems to expand on that theme, and eloquently.

But I wanted to know about this:

The lie of Palestine holds that the pre-1967 borders are somehow sacred, and that there cannot be peace unless the refugees are allowed to return to their homes.

What do you think of that statement? Do you agree? Why should not the Palestinians have a return to the 1967 borders and the right of return? Aren't those fairly major issues? I'm just a little baffled as to why those things ought reasonably to be sacrificed by the Palestinians.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Right of return is a dead issue.

Israel will not agree to its destruction. End of story.

[Tom Joad]

7. The world will insist on what's right. History is on the side of justice.

[Jim Sagle]

8. A world that would destroy the only Jewish state and call it "right" would

literally be hell on earth.

Right of Return is justice only on Opposite Day.

[pelsar]

10. justice for whom?

or perhaps you would like a list of those that have not received "justice"...heres a short list:
jews of russia, germany france, palestine, iraq, iran, egypt,
muslims of palestine, jordan, egypt, lebanon, kuwait, saudi arabia
palestenians in palestine, gaza, lebanon, egypt, kuwiat
christians in palestein, sudan, chechnyia,
indians of N.American, Canada
protestants in N.Ireland, Cathlics in N. Ireland
white farmer of Zimbabwa....

shall i go on?...your "world insisting" probably includes facist regimes like iran and saudi arabia "insisting on justice"...

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Like the world did in the 1930's

*

*

That's what the world, including FDR and Neville Chamberlain, insisted on (facilitated).

[barb162]

26. And whose definition of what is right?

Oh, and History is on no side

[barb162]

25. Right of return gets dredged up every so often but

just about everyone knows this issue is deader than a doornail.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. Actually, the Israeli negotiators at Taba would disagree strongly with you

While there's some folk who'd love to think the issue is deader than a doornail, those who know a bit about the conflict and what is required to resolve it know that the refugee issue is most definately a crucial issue that can't be ignored, and it will have to be addressed along with other issues in any future negotiations..


Violet...

[barb162]

49. Wrong. Even Arafat didn't consider it a main issue his last few yrs

And neither did senior negotiators

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Not wrong at all. Here's why:

Here's what both Palestinian and Israeli negotiators at Taba came up with. Can you please explain after reading this why you don't think the Israeli negotiators at Taba considered the refugee issue to be a central issue? I've bolded the bit where you directly contradict what the negotiators stated:

3. Refugees

Non-papers were exchanged, which were regarded as a good basis for the talks. Both sides stated that the issue of the Palestinian refugees is central to the Israeli-Palestinian relations and that a comprehensive and just solution is essential to creating a lasting and morally scrupulous peace. Both sides agreed to adopt the principles and references with could facilitate the adoption of an agreement.

Both sides suggested, as a basis, that the parties should agree that a just settlement of the refugee problem in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 242 must lead to the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

3.1 Narrative

The Israeli side put forward a suggested joint narrative for the tragedy of the Palestinian refugees. The Palestinian side discussed the proposed narrative and there was much progress, although no agreement was reached in an attempt to develop and historical narrative in the general text.

3.2 Return, repatriation and relocation and rehabilitation

Both sides engaged in a discussion of the practicalities of resolving the refugee issue. The Palestinian side reiterated that the Palestinian refugees should have the right of return to their homes in accordance with the interpretation of UNGAR 194. The Israeli side expressed its understanding that the wish to return as per wording of UNGAR 194 shall be implemented within the framework of one of the following programs:

A. Return and repatriation

1. to Israel
2. to Israel swapped territory
3. to the Palestine state.

B. Rehabilitation and relocation

1. Rehabilitation in host country.
2. Relocation to third country.
Preference in all these programs shall be accorded to the Palestinian refugee population in Lebanon. The Palestinian side stressed that the above shall be subject to the individual free choice of the refugees, and shall not prejudice their right to their homes in accordance with its interpretation of UNGAR 194.

The Israeli side, informally, suggested a three-track 15-year absorption program, which was discussed but not agreed upon. The first track referred to the absorption to Israel. No numbers were agreed upon, but with a non-paper referring to 25,000 in the first three years of this program (40,000 in the first five years of this program did not appear in the non-paper but was raised verbally). The second track referred to the absorption of Palestinian refugees into the Israeli territory, that shall be transferred to Palestinian sovereignty, and the third track referring to the absorption of refugees in the context of family reunification scheme.

The Palestinian side did not present a number, but stated that the negotiations could not start without an Israeli opening position. It maintained that Israel's acceptance of the return of refugees should not prejudice existing programs within Israel such as family reunification.

3.3 Compensation

Both sides agreed to the establishment of an International Commission and an International Fund as a mechanism for dealing with compensation in all its aspects. Both sides agreed that "small-sum" compensation shall be paid to the refugees in the "fast-track" procedure, claims of compensation for property losses below certain amount shall be subject to "fast-track" procedures.

There was also progress on Israeli compensation for material losses, land and assets expropriated, including agreement on a payment from an Israeli lump sum or proper amount to be agreed upon that would feed into the International Fund. According to the Israeli side the calculation of this payment would be based on a macro-economic survey to evaluate the assets in order to reach a fair value. The Palestinian side, however, said that this sum would be calculated on the records of the UNCCP, the Custodian for Absentee Property and other relevant data with a multiplier to reach a fair value.

3.4 UNRWA

Both sides agreed that UNRWA should be phased out in accordance with an agreed timetable of five years, as a targeted period. The Palestinian side added a possible adjustment of that period to make sure that this will be subject to the implementation of the other aspects of the agreement dealing with refugees, and with termination of Palestinian refugee status in the various locations.

3.5 Former Jewish refugees

The Israeli side requested that the issue of compensation to former Jewish refugees from Arab countries be recognized, while accepting that it was not a Palestinian responsibility or a bilateral issue. The Palestinian side maintained that this is not a subject for a bilateral Palestinian-Israeli agreement.

3.6 Restitution

The Palestinian side raised the issue of restitution of refugee property. The Israeli side rejected this.

3.7 End of claims

The issue of the end of claims was discussed, and it was suggested that the implementation of the agreement shall constitute a complete and final implementation of UNGAR 194 and therefore ends all claims.

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/taba.shtml

Violet...

[barb162]

53. why waste time bringing up failed talks

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Because you incorrectly claimed it was a dead issue for negotiators...

You were incorrect. And I think yr very incorrect in trying to negate the importance of the negotiations at Taba. Doesn't the fact that Taba resulted in the closest agreement yet between Palestinian negotiators mean anything,or is it just time-wasting to mention Taba at all?

Assuming that you read the Israeli and Palestinian statements on the right of return, do you agree with those positions or not? Me, I thought what the Israeli negotiators came up with was fair, and as they said themselves, the right of return is NOT a dead issue. Anyone who believes that this issue should not be addressed either has no interest in or knowledge of what it is going to take to bring about a fair and lasting peace.....

Violet...

[pelsar]

9. because its reality....

the 67 borders were simply cease fire lines..no more than that. Had israel lost in 48, there would have been no israel, and lots more dead jews. Had israel been stronger, jerusalem would not have been divided, etc.

Up until recently (or if you read the PLO charter for instance) you will find no mention of the 67 borders....they are simply the realization that the more they fight israel the more they lose...at least some are realizing that (hamas, islamic jihad, govt of iran, etc are not there)

However the 67 borders arent really "there". Jersualems expansion has covered parts of it. Nothing bad there, had the arabs won in 67, jewish jersualem would have dissappeared, as would have Tel Aviv, etc....moral of the story?....if you attack and lose, there are consequences.

there will be no "return of the refugess".....for a multiple of reasons. first and formost the character and reason for israel, as a sanctuary and secure, proud central point etc for jews would be wiped out, as the democratic process would insure that.

Many of their original villages no longer exist, being replaced with jewish towns and cities, their different culture would alter the present israel etc. The country of israel would cease to exist.

monuments to jewish heros would be desecrated, the museums celebrating the jewish/israeli history would be removed etc and with the additions of suicide bomber monuments....culturally there would be war, which would lead to a violent civil war...just give it some thought.....

__________________________

israel is no different than any other country that has to preserve its character and institutions (france comes to mind)...commiting cultural suicide is not a realistic option....at least not for us.

[Wordie]

12. But pelsar, you still don't acknowledge or seem to see the illegality.

Let's leave the issue of the right of return aside for a moment, and just talk about the borders, and the way that your comments below apply to those borders (if we try to talk about them both at the same time we are likely to get muddled again):

Many of their original villages no longer exist, being replaced with jewish towns and cities, their different culture would alter the present israel etc. The country of israel would cease to exist.

monuments to jewish heros would be desecrated, the museums celebrating the jewish/israeli history would be removed etc and with the additions of suicide bomber monuments....culturally there would be war, which would lead to a violent civil war...just give it some thought.....

__________________________

israel is no different than any other country that has to preserve its character and institutions (france comes to mind)...commiting cultural suicide is not a realistic option....at least not for us.

In the case of the borders, have you forgetten that the Jewish settlements and institutions and even synagogues, etc., have been built illegally? This case is very different than that of France. Part of the violence all along has been because the land was being stolen, right before the Palestinians' eyes, while Israel simply ignored international law in order to take what they wanted.

And don't say it was for security purposes, as there have been several reports that make it clear that in areas where security was not a serious problem, the route of the wall was planned so that it effected an annexation of additional Palestinian territory, by intruding deep into the Palestinian side of the line. Not to mention, for instance, that Mofaz himself has said there has been a great reduction in the amount of terrorism since the withdrawal from Gaza. Seems like withdrawing from Palestinian territory is the thing that leads to peace. How do you explain that? Can't you see that Israel has made mistakes, too?

[sabbat hunter]

13. 1967 borders

will play devils advocate here for a moment (i believe that israel should have its borders approximately along the green line with an exception for the old city of jerusalem.)

if israel gives all the occupied territories shouldnt the following happen as well?
should poland give back land to germany? after all large swaths of its land was taken from
Germany after WWI and WWII.
should the US give back most of the southwest, texas and california to mexico? after all we took those lands in war.
shouldnt serbia,romania, croatia, bosnia all go back to austria and hungary after all those countries were carved out of the austro-hungarian empire.


(end of devil's advocate)
now all that being said i believe borders of countries are somewhat fluid. if you attack another country and you lose there is a price. however in the interest of peace in the middle east israel should give back most of the west bank. if after a palestinian state is formed and terror attacks continue, then israel has a right to defend itself, as does any sovereign nation, from attack.

as far as the right of return goes, it isnt going to happen. the palestinians who can legitimately claim they lost land, houses in what is now israel should be compensated monetarily. as should any jews who fled arab countries and lost their lands there.

[Wordie]

16. "should the US give back most of the southwest, texas and california...?"

Surely you see the differences there? I am sure that Israel does not really wish to use an example of a 19th century war to justify it's existance. And as for the other examples you cited, the parallels you claim just aren't there. If anything, there are more parallels between the Pals and Polish and the other nationalities. (I really don't want to debate this point, because I don't think the examples are particularly good ones in the first place.)

I've all too frequently also heard the argument (which you don't make, I realize, but it is in the same vein) that if Israel should give back the land, well then, so should the US give back land to the Native Americans. Again, all these sorts of arguments are based on a very shaky foundation. To argue that we should return to the ethnocentric and cruel ethic of an earlier era is a non-starter, imho. And don't forget, precisely because of these sorts of problems in the world, we developed an institution, the UN, to mediate these sorts of disputes. It was the UN that recognized Israel in the first place. Why is it that the UN's decision regarding Israel's right to exist should be accepted, but not the UN decisions regarding the fair resolution of the Palestinian's claims?

And in all of this it's important to remember that the problem did not start in 1967. The Palestinians were not responsible for all the horrors inflicted on the Jews through the centuries. Those horrors were primarily inflicted by Europeans. Can you understand why they might reasonably have not believed they should be the ones to make the sacrifice because of those horrors?

And you seem also to ignore that Jerusalem has also been for centuries the center of Palestinian life in the area. Can you not see that a threat to Jerusalem is also felt on the Palestinian side? Why should Israeli needs and desires come first?

And when you qualify a return to 1967 borders with the word "approximately" just what do you mean? Do you mean Israel should be able to retain all the Palestinian property illegally seized since then? And btw, the "security" argument doesn't fly, because much of the land seized by the Wall on the Pal side of the land is in areas where there has not been a significant security threat. How can this be justfied?

[pelsar]

19. 67 war....

perhaps you should explain your take on the 67 war...you keep saying that israel "illegally" seized palestenains property.

should israel have let itself be invaded and destroyed in 67???????

[Jim Sagle]

32. Do you really want an answer to that one?

;-)

[sabbat hunter]

30. resolutions

the UN resolutions that say israel should pull out of the west bank, also say it is entitled to safe and secure borders.this means that about 99% of the land should be palestinian, with some of the highlands staying under israeli control.


and jerusalem was not a major palestinian city. it actually was a fairly back water place for centuries.

the old city was supposed to be an international city under UN auspices but the UN failed to defend the city and protect it and keep it open. only under israeli control has it been open to all people. there are areas in the eastern parts of jersualem that are considered to be "arab" but IMHO that does not include the old city.

lets face it if the arab nations had won in 1947 there wouldnt be any palestine today, as egypt and jordan would have split the country between them. it really wasnt until 1967 that the plight of the palestinians came to the forefront.

[Wordie]

31. The later UN resolutions don't support your claims.

I don't think Israel should uni-laterally be able to decide to keep all of Jerusalem for itself, in defiance of UN resolutions. Who is Israel to decide whether Jerusalem is important to the Palestinians or not? Have you forgotten that the al asqa mosque is located in the old city, and that Jerusalem has been home to a substantial population of Palestinians for centuries? That's what much of the violence is about in the first place, can't you see that? (And I realize not all of the violence is about that, so no need to recite the litany of harm to Israel.)

And while Israel claims that it is now an open city, for Palestinians that is only a theoretical claim. Their ability to visit the mosque and the city itself is severely restricted. As is even their residence in the city; a variety of Israeli laws and policies have made it increasingly difficult for them to maintain their residence there. Even the tax structures discriminate against them: they pay at the same tax rate, but Israel provides few services in return in the Palestinian areas of the city; their taxes end up paying for excellent services in the Israeli sections, while their own are neglected.

I often think that a return to the idea of an international city under UN auspices, with a serious security force, would be very wise.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. What about the ability of Jews to daven at the Wall prior to 1967?

Doesn't count. Was in the Armistice and promptly forgotten.

[Coastie for Truth]

33. Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

There is valid legal and historic basis for an argument (made by California's Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, in his younger days, and by Immigrants' Rights Groups and Bi-Lingual Education advocates, among many others) that the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is invalid - imposed by victors at gun point upon vanquished, and that the US has not lived up to its many obligations under the treaty.

These obligations apparently include (according to those Immigrants' Rights Groups and Bi-Lingual Education advocates), a right to bilingual education, a ban on "English-only" and "English is the Official Language of the US" laws, open borders (i.e., no Tancrato-Pombo Apartheid Wall), etc. I have not gone into the fine points of Latino, Ohlone, and ethnic politics in California, but you are being a bit to cavalier.

You stated "And you seem also to ignore that Jerusalem has also been for centuries the center of Palestinian life in the area. Can you not see that a threat to Jerusalem is also felt on the Palestinian side? Why should Israeli needs and desires come first?" This would appear to some old fashion liberals as kind of ethnocentric also, almost like denying any Jewish history or ties to Jerusalem.

As to the Green Line - "approximately" is a valid statement, given that jots and tittles were determined in many cases by the location of corpses or wrecked trucks. Yes - I have walked along the Green Line - with hardliners and with people to the left of Michael Lerner and Felicia Langer and Shulamit Aloni and Amira Hass and Ilan Pappe.

[pelsar]

14. whats illegal?

as far as i understand....land taken in a defense war belongs to the victor....

in 67 israel was attacked and the Jordanians, Egyptians and Syrians lost the land that they attacked from....

will you please show me other examples in the world where countries that were attacked were pressured by the world to return the land.

please note i am not talking about peace, etc, just the "illegality" and the use of the word. (and please dont go into military stragegies about defensive positions.....they can be suicidal and easily circumvented)

_____________________________________
israel has made millions of mistakes....and i have no problem with listing them...just ask.
______________________________________

you mention part of the violence is because of the settlements...what about the other part?

Gaza?..yes attacks are down, because the settlements are not within...however missles flying everyday in to israel is hardly "peaceful"...with a nice fence around gaza, and its being watched...that is all they can do (and some tunneling)...why do you see the kassams as "acceptable?...i dont

furthermore...withdrawl from the westbank,means the intl airport, knesset would be in range of the kassams...and you dont see a problem with that? (and should i remind you that abbas has said....its not his problem.....)..

and my "never answered question"
what would you suggest israel do, if the westbank is given to the palestenains and kassams start flying into the airport, jerusalem, hadera etc....

[Wordie]

17. So none of the UN's resolutions have any meaning to you? n/t

[pelsar]

18. some do.....

those thay are "even handed"..those that mention that the palestenians also have played a part in the violence and also have a responsability.....

[Wordie]

20. OK...a hypothetical, then...

Let's say that we were able to stop the violence, but in order to do so, Israel would have to honor UN Res. 242. For the purposes of this example, let's leave aside the question of the right of return, and focus solely on the borders issue, saying that the resolution means Israel must return to exact 1967 borders (and also means that the Palestinians retain East Jerusalem). (This is only a hypothetical; the intent here is not to quibble over the real meaning of the resolution; you do not need to agree with this interpretation of 242 to answer this hypothetical.)

Would you, if you were the one making the decisions for Israel, agree to this?

[pelsar]

21. hypothetically...

no problem.... I would also add the condition, since we are in the hypothetical world, that all the arab countries stop with the incitement against jews and israelis (as i see them as part and parcel of the conflict) or that the palestenians tell them to "stop it"

[Wordie]

22. pelsar, I'm impressed.

You have risen substantially in my estimation. I happen to think that many would not have given that answer.

...but I do have to add that it's not reasonable to hold the Pals responsible for any other countries. Still, your condition on it's own merits is not at all an unreasonable goal.

Aaahhh, a breakthrough in communication. I never thought it possible here in I/P. Thank you, pelsar, you've made my day!

[pelsar]

23. glad to hear it.....

i guess you would be surprised to hear that i'm "left of center" and far more liberal than the conflict permits me to be....the israeli leftest can be both a "combat infantry soldier" who has spent time in gaza, westbank (though i prefered the egyptian border)...and join protests against the occupation...our world is full of conflicting choices

good start for a new year

[Wordie]

24. "good start for a new year" Yes!

And I'm not particularly surprised to hear those things. Perhaps we had painted ourselves into a corner by focusing on the areas of disagreement, rather than searching for things we agree upon. Now that we've found a common ground, I suspect it will be easier to discuss the disagreements productively.

Happy New Year and Happy Hannukah to you pelsar!

[pelsar]

27. you to wordie....

catch you later....got to go (something about news years)

At any rate, now that you've realized that i'm not a "rabid right winger"/ fanatic religious zealot, etc...feel free to ask....you'll get just honest answers from me, some may be uncomfortable for me, as i do identify with israel, but i will answer honestly.

[Wordie]

29. I never thought...

that you were "a "rabid right winger"/ fanatic religious zealot," but...

...I started to mention here what the areas of disgreement have been, but I think I'll leave that for another day. I want to savor this breakthrough in communication without getting back into the problem areas just now. Have a great New Year celebration!

[barb162]

28. You're right

(Happy New Year, Pelsar)

[pelsar]

15. double post...ignore

[eyl]

35. Actually, what Mofaz said

was that there was a drop in casualties due to terrorism. That is simply because with no Israeli soldiers or civilians inside the Strip, the Palestinians are limited to attacks at the Line checkpoints - which are more difficult targets - or missile shootings - which often don't cause casualties (AFAIR, throughout the intifada there have been only two suicide bombers from Gaza who successfuly struck inside Israel). OTOH, the number of missile attacks has gone up, as has the area of Israel threatened by them.

[Coastie for Truth]

40. Let me put it in precise legalisms

Palestinian "right of return" (not "reparations" - but an absolute "right of return") is what lawyers call a "show stopper" or "deal breaker."

Not the least bit analogous to the Israeli right of return:

1.
2. "While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy" by Arthur D. Morse
3. "The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 by David S. Wyman

Not the least bit analogous:
1. The Israelis are not asphyxiating and cremating.

2. The world is still open to Palestinians. Even in Bush's hysterical post 9/11 world, we are still welcoming Palestinians - come visit Milpitas CA and Fremont CA and Saratoga CA and Campbell CA and Los Angeles CA - if you don't believe me. My (South Asian) Plurality Muslim condo complex even has a Hallal Palestinian owned restaurant.
:hi: :hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

44. That was neither precise nor did it contain legalisms...

WTF does yr condo complex have to do with anything??


Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

46. Tough

"Deal breaker" and "show stopper" are the legalsims.

Just that I live among Muslims in a plurality Muslim community - and we all get along.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Really?

Those terms sound more like sleazy used-car salesmanisms to me...

That's lovely that you get on with yr neighbours, but that's not really relevant to what's being discussed in this thread...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

42. No, I definately don't agree with him on that...

The lie of Palestine holds that the pre-1967 borders are somehow sacred, and that there cannot be peace unless the refugees are allowed to return to their homes.

Unless there is mutual agreement between partners on an equal footing to swap land, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for Palestinians to not want to lose any more of their territory to Israel than they already have. Do you notice that any time this stuff comes up about the pre-67 borders not being where Israel ends and occupied territory begins, it's always done in order to try to claim that Israel can take more Palestinian land. Yet the same people who argue the fuzzy borders argument would shriek in outraged protest if the situations were reversed and it was the Palestinians taking more Israeli land...

I'm a bit less decided about the one about there not being peace unless the refugees are allowed to return to their homes. If he'd said 'there cannot be peace unless the claims of the refugees are addressed and the refugee issue resolve', I'd strongly disagree with him, and point out that like anyone who does a knee-jerk 'that's a dead issue. they should just get on with their lives!!' I'm very doubtful that much thought or empathy has been put into it. One 100% solid fact is that unless the refugee issue is addressed in final status negotiations, there won't be peace. It is one of the most important issues and can't just be ignored.

The reality is though that all the refugees are not going to be able to return to their homes. Some refugees tend to cling to an image of the homes they or their ancestors fled or were expelled from in the late 1940's as one where they can walk in the front door and time will have stood still. They know that many villages were razed to the ground and those homes no longer exist, and that for others their homes were taken by the Israeli govt and given to Jewish immigrants, but the dream is a more palatable one for them, and there hasn't been much of an attempt to get them ready for the fact that the best a lot of them will get is compensation and an acknowledgement from Israel of the wrong it did them...

Violet...

[sabbat hunter]

51. will that be

accompanied by similar compensation and acknowledgement from arab countries about what they did to jews living in their countries?

[bemildred]

36. Violet?

I'm curious what you think of this? I'll expose myself first: I think he makes some good points here and there, but wanders off into incoherence and emotionalism a bit much. I mean he is right, self-righteousness makes you stupid and then it makes your life suck, but he claims to speak for the EU and the USA and Russia and so on too, and says various other things that are at best his opinion and at worst emotional blabber. Not that I entirely blame him, he sounds pretty bummed out.

Edit: I think I would say: he suffers from the disease he diagnoses in others - I suppose he does not even deny that - but it leaks into his prose.

[Wordie]

38. I thought he pretty much said he recognized the disease in himself,

and by extension the Israelis, as well. And yet that part I quoted - about the Pals holding their own needs sacred - seemed to me a curious way of recognizing it as I read it. It just wasn't clear at that part if the author saw the Israelis as also holding their own needs as sacred. That's the crux of the problem: Whose sacred needs are to be sacrificed on the pyre of peace?

Maybe I've got it wrong and he wasn't recognizing the disease as one the Israelis shared with the Palestinians, but as a purely Palestinian disease. If that's the case, my opinion of the article would be much different. I'll have to go back and read it again.

[pelsar]

52. it was about both....

"And while we're on the subject, may you someday recover from the disease you caught from us."

hes talking about both peoples....

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I think much the same about it...

I thought the best point he made was about both Israelis and Palestinians having the same disease, though it was pretty much downhill from that point, and I doubt that stellar moment of his would have been noticed or agreed with by those who actually have a mutant long-distance form of the disease themselves...

Violet...

[bemildred]

48. Thank you, well put. nt

[Colorado Blue]

37. More from the article:

How do you know if you have the disease? There are a number of telltale signs.

Do you find yourself denying my right to live here? Do you find yourself dismissing my history in this place as a pack of contrived myths?

Do you consider my crimes to be responsible for the civilian victims of your attacks? Do you assume and thus declare that I want to ethnically cleanse you? Do you suspect that I am really no better than the Nazis and perhaps no different?

Do you find that you cannot forgive me for your mistakes?

snip

But there is a lie of Palestine, and it has to everything to do with the idea that the way to treat the disease is to exact penance from us in the form of blood.

***

Yes, I'd agree that the author is pretty bummed.

[barb162]

41. nicely chosen; my favorite was

"Every move of terror on your part alienates the Quartet just that much more, makes the world understand less why it is that you really should have a state of your own after all, or that you'll have any idea what to do with it when you get one."