Lula visits Arafat tomb, officials fume

[bemildred]

Foreign Ministry officials were fuming on Wednesday that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who refused to lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl in Jerusalem, contrary to new Israeli protocol measures recently instituted, donned a keffiyeh around his shoulders and laid a wreath at the tomb of Yasser Arafat in Ramallah.

“This is an insult,” one senior Foreign Ministry official said. “It is offensive that he laid a wreath at the grave of a terrorist, but not at the tomb of Zionism’s visionary.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman snubbed Lula da Silva during his visit in Jerusalem on Monday because of his refusal to go to Mount Herzl.

Lula da Silva laid a yellow and green wreath on Arafat’s mausoleum on Wednesday, following Palestinian protocol for visiting leaders. Ramallah Mayor Janet Mikhail draped a black-and-white keffiyeh on the shoulders of the Brazilian president, who told a crowd of Palestinian officials and several dozen people waving Brazil’s flag that he had participated in pro-Palestinian protests in the past.

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171254

[Jefferson23]

1. Things are certainly shaking up over there, aren't they!

[bemildred]

3. I don't reckon he will be invited back real soon.

I don't reckon that bothers him any either.

[Arctic Dave]

2. How dare he lay a wreath at their terrorist and not ours. Outrage I say.

[oberliner]

4. How is Theodor Herzl a terrorist? nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Herzle wasn't, but e.g. numerous prime ministers of Israel have been.

N.T.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. His dream of displacing an indigenous people with Eastern and Western European settlers

certainly required acts of terror in order to implement. Did he himself commit those acts? no.

Your tactics of obfuscation (ie... focus on miniscule point to try to divert convesation) are so transparent.

Lula can go visit the grave of whomever he chooses. I think that's the poster's point.

[oberliner]

7. To clarify - you do or do not believe that Theodor Herzl was a terrorist?

Your description of his "dream" is bizarre. Nothing that he dreamed of required any acts of terror.

In fact, his dreams were to help Jewish people escape anti-semitism in Europe.

Sadly, massive numbers of Jewish people across Eastern and Western Europe fell victim to acts of terror shortly after his death the extent of which he could not even imagine.

It's amazing how the realities of what happened to the Jewish people in Europe somehow don't make it in to your narrative.

"Eastern and Western European settlers?" As if their being Jewish is not even worth nothing.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Of course not, any more than Karl Marx was a dictator.

I find it sadly ironic that modern zionists credit Herzl as their inspiration - zionism as it actually developed has far more in common with Geyer than Litvak.

And my favourite line from Altneuland is this, spoken by the narrator:

"Oh, that's what you meant. You are mistaken. I have no connection with Palestine. I have never been there. It does not interest me. My ancestors left it eighteen hundred years ago. What should I seek there? I think that only anti-Semites can call Palestine our fatherland."

[oberliner]

10. The question was directed to the poster above based on their comments

With respect to Altneuland, there is no narrator character in that novel. You're quote is from one of the two main characters just before he gets to Jerusalem.

The book was quite prescient as it accurately predicted much of what happened to the Jews of Europe in the decades that followed its publication.

Although the book merely predicted the expulsion of Jews from Europe rather than their attempted annihilation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I would not describe Altneuland as prescient.

The idea that the Arabs would welcome their new Jewish overlords with open arms once they realised in would increase the value of their property is naive at best.

You're quite right that I should have said "viewpoint character" rather than "narrator", though. Who do you view as the other main character - I would have said that it's very much the story of Loewenberg and the people he meets; Kingscourt and Litvak are both very much seen through his eyes.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Let's not allow Oberliner to hijack the thread. Bottom line: Lula stands in solidarity with the

people of Palestine.

Bravo!

[oberliner]

21. Glad that Lula does not support the BDS nonsense

"We hope to advance economic and business ties between Israel and Brazil as trade has increased significantly between our two countries in the past few years. We can continue with the current momentum," he said.

"I am launching a new investment plan in Brazil soon and I invite Israeli companies to take an active and significant part," he said.

Israel-Brazil trade seen surging on Latam trade deal

JERUSALEM, March 15 (Reuters) - Brazil expects a new free trade agreement with Israel to swell bilateral trade to more than $3 billion within five years, officials said on Monday.

Trade between Israel and Brazil slipped below $1 billion in 2009 from a peak of $1.6 billion in 2008 -- $1.2 billion of which were Israeli exports -- due to the global economic crisis.

But a new free trade agreement between Israel and the Mercosur bloc -- Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay -- goes into effect in early April. Israel is the first non-Latin American country to sign such a trade deal with Mercosur.

Brazil gave its final approval to the pact on March 4, a week after Paraguay.

"We will triple trade between Israel and Brazil by 2015," Paulo Skaf, president of the Federation of Industries of the State of Sao Paulo, said at a conference in Jerusalem attended by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Israeli President Shimon Peres and a group of Israeli and Brazilian business leaders.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62E1DM20100315?type=marketsNews

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. How do you conflate this attitude with the one you express in post #19?

In that post, you state that what you are hoping for is a settlement in which Israel gets 2.5% of the West Bank, none of Gaza, and is required to divide Jerusalem.

It seems to me self-evident that Israel will never willingly agree to a settlement along those lines unless immense external pressure is placed upon it - most Israelis regard Olmert's offer in which Israel got to keep 6.3% of the West Bank and (crucially) all of Jerusalem as disgustingly over-generous.

Is it your view that I'm wrong in this assessment and that Israel might agree to a settlement along the lines you advocate in post #19 without external pressure, or that BDS are not a good way of applying that pressure, or what?

And if not BDS, can you see any other course of action that might lead to Israel agreeing to a settlement along the lines you say you support?

[oberliner]

30. If you think "BDS" will lead to Israel "agreeing to a settlement" you are not living on Earth

With all due respect, the fact that you can even pose a question such as the one in the last line of the above post shows a severe disconnect from reality.

I support the actions of the Obama administration - that kind of pressure is definitely helpful. Tell both sides, firmly, that they are going to need to make compromises and sit down and negotiate a deal.

Unfortunately, both sides have governments that are not particularly receptive to any kind of peace agreement.

Also, crucially, the Palestinians have two separate governments that do not recognize each other's authority.

The Palestinian leadership in Gaza has rejected and continued to reject the three basic principles that the Obama administration has laid out as being critical: recognize Israel, renounce violence, and agree to adhere to past agreements.

The pressure that has been applied to the Gaza government by the US (and others) to try to make that happen goes far beyond anything the BDS movement can even hope to accomplish.

Yet, in spite of this pressure, they have shown zero indication that they will accede to any of these three principles - each of which, incidentally, would be essential for anything like the Geneva Initiative to be implemented.

The fact that rockets continue to be launched by Palestinians at civilians in Israel (recently killing one such civilian) creates as much of an impediment to any kind of serious peace agreement as anything else.

In the final analysis, Jerusalem is the only issue that I see being difficult to resolve. Everything else outlined in the Geneva Initiative would be more than feasible assuming the Palestinian side is able to present a unified front. As you noted above, Olmert made an opening offer that wasn't too far off from the Geneva Initiative in many respects (other than Jerusalem) and he is no peacenik.

[oberliner]

16. It was with respect to the fate of the Jews in Europe

Perhaps not so much with its vision of Palestine.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. The poster above won't be taking any more questions from Oberliner until you state your

position on Israel's settlement policy for the record.

[oberliner]

19. As I've stated a million times - The Geneva Initiative accurately represents my position

Here are some of the relevant passages with respect to settlements and to Jerusalem:

Article 4 - Borders & Settlements: The border between the states of Palestine and Israel shall be based on the June 4th 1967 lines with reciprocal modifications on a 1:1 basis. Approximately 97.5% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza will become part of Palestine, plus 2.5% of Israel from two areas: one area near Gaza to widen the Gaza Strip by 90 square kilometers, and another area adjacent to the southern West Bank. All of the 2.5% of West Bank territory that will become part of Israel comes from around Jerusalem. (See below for more on Jerusalem)

Article 6 - Jerusalem: Israel and Palestine shall have their mutually recognized capitals in areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty.

* Israel will receive sovereignty over the "Wailing" Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, and Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, including Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim, and the original historically Jewish area of Gush Etzion. Israel shall administer the Tower of David, the Western Wall tunnel, and the Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

* Palestine will receive sovereignty over al-Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount (the "Compound"), the Muslim, Christian, and Armenian Quarters of the Old City, and the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

* An International Group, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will be established to monitor, verify, and assist in the implementation of the terms of the agreement regarding the Compound. The Compound will be open to people of all faiths, with the Multinational Force ensuring freedom of access to the site. In view of the sanctity of the Compound, and in light of the unique religious and cultural significance of the site to the Jewish people, there shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on the Compound, unless approved by the two Parties.

http://www.chicagopeacenow.org/Geneva-Summary.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Do you condemn Israel's ongoing expropriation of Arab properties and neighborhoods in E. J'lem?

At this rate, there won't BE any Arab neighborhoods left in Jerusalem for them to keep control over!

[oberliner]

31. There are a quarter of a million Arabs living in East Jerusalem

That number is growing - so your hyperbole is misplaced.

I do agree with you, however, that most Israelis do not view East Jerusalem in the same way that they view, say, Ariel.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. You didn't answer the question PM asked you. So, can you please answer it?

'Do you condemn Israel's ongoing expropriation of Arab properties and neighborhoods in E. J'lem?'

I don't really understand why you didn't answer the question, as I would have thought someone who calls themselves a moderate on the conflict would find that a very easy one to answer and be eager to do so.

[oberliner]

36. You've just slandered me in another thread

I'm not particularly keen on accomodating your requests at this time.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. No, I didn't, and it was PM who asked you the question originally...

If you come up with some excuse about why you won't answer questions she's asked you, there's plenty more people in this forum who might like to ask you: 'Do you condemn Israel's ongoing expropriation of Arab properties and neighborhoods in E. J'lem?'

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Do you deny that the realization of Herzl's dream in Israel absolutely included

multiple acts of terror against the indigenous people so that Eastern and Western European Jews could colonize their land?

Could Herzl's dream be realized without violence again the indigenous people?

[oberliner]

18. Herzl never advocated violence against anyone

His concern was to address the anti-semitism that saturated Europe and to find a way for Jews to live somewhere free of persecution.

He never even imagined the horrific terror and violence of the Holocaust.

He imagined Jews and Arabs working together in brotherhood and benevolence. He saw no cause for any conflict between them.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. True, but slightly incomplete.

Herzl never advocated violence, and almost certainly never expected that violence would be needed to achieve what he did advocate.

On the other hand, what he did advocate was something that any sensible person could have told him could never have been achieved without violence, and his advocation of it lead directly to a great deal of violence.

He was an immensely naive idealist whose ideas lead to great suffering, in ways that I suspect would probably have horrified him - the actual character of the Israeli state is far closer to that advocated by the villain of Altneuland, his most famous work, than that set forth by the hero.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. You can't displace an indigenous population without violence.

I realize Herzl wasn't even the big advocate for going to Palestine per se.

Nor am I accusing him of being a terrorist.

But can we all just agree on the basic fact that the implementation of the Zionist dream of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine required much violence, including acts of terror?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

26. Herzl didn't envisage the Palestinians being displaced.

He thought they'd be quite happy to live there under Jewish majority rule.

I do entirely agree that "the implementation of the Zionist dream of a homeland for Jewish people in Palestine required much violence, including acts of terror"; I also think that it is probably true that this *should* have been forseeable at the point when Herzl was advocating the ideas that lead to Zionism. But Herzl *didn't* forsee it, and I think it's unfair to accuse him of anything more than naivete in connection with it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

27. Again, I'm sorry the second poster on this board ever call Herzl a terrorist...

as I said 25 posts up, I'm quite sure it wasn't the intent.

Not that it stopped Oberliner.

Why talk about Brazil's support for Palestine when you can focus on defending Zionism?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Who said anything about defending Zionism?

And "why talk about X rather than Y" is a silly thing to say - I don't have anything of any particular interest to say about Lula's attitude to the Middle East crisis beyong "it looks mildly encouraging", which I do not consider to be worth a post, whereas I did have something that I at least considered mildy worth saying to say about Theodor Herzl.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. My beef is not with you.

I recognize that Palestine isn't of much interest on these boards.

[oberliner]

32. I'm happy to talk about Brazil's relationship with Israelis and Palestinians as well

I just wanted to address the statement made that I disagreed with - and I did.

I don't begrudge you the right to respond to things that tick you off as well.

I think Brazil is actually trying to involve itself in the peace process and that's a good thing. Avigdor definitely was dumb for refusing to meet with him - but that is par for the course for him.

[Shaktimaan]

9. Herzl... a terrorist?

Do you ever think that maybe you should learn something about a subject prior to forming an opinion about it?

[Meshuga]

11. I don't think Lula is an anti-Zionist or someone who would refuse to go to Herzl's grave

I heard from the Brazilian media that the attitude of the Brazilian president was that he did not snub the visit but he didn't see it as a required event since other world leaders were not required to go in the past.

Regardless, Lula is hardly an anti-Zionist. It would be a different story if Lula came out and said he would never visit the grave for what Herzl represents. But this is something for Avigdor Lieberman and the anti-anything-Israel to fantasize to serve their own purposes.

[LeftishBrit]

33. +1

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. "...a fearless and courageous people fighting for their dignity, freedom and democracy."

Lula Backs Palestinian Struggle in West Bank Visit

Obama’s comments come in contrast to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who wrapped up a Middle East trip Wednesday with a visit to the West Bank. Speaking in Ramallah, Lula said Brazilians support the Palestinian struggle for self-determination.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: “It gives me great emotion to be the first Brazilian president to step on Palestinian soil. In Brazil, when we think of Ramallah, Gaza and the West Bank, they evoke a fearless and courageous people fighting for their dignity, freedom and democracy. The self-determination of the Palestinians is a cause close to the heart of Brazilians.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/18/headlines

[Jefferson23]

20. Lula wants a permanent seat on the Security Council of the UN, I hope that he gets it.

[LeftishBrit]

34. Me too. Brazil is one of the relatively hopeful political stories of our time

30 years ago, Brazil had a nasty military dictatorship. Now it has Lula, an amazing improvement.