Rajoub: Terror attacks within Green Line were a mistake

[GabysPoppy]

Terror attacks against Israeli civilians within the Green Line were a tragic mistake for the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Security Advisor said on Tuesday.

"As a matter of principle I think that this was wrong and I think that this was one of the mistakes of the Palestinians, to attack Israeli civilians or to make any kind of attacks inside the Green Line," Rajoub told a meeting of the AJC (American Jewish Committee) Board of Governors at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem.

"Israel and the Palestinians should work towards a comprehensive ceasefire from both sides, meaning they should stop all acts of violence and aggression and start bilateral engagement – a ceasefire and political negotiations", Jibril Rajoub told the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

He repeated that he believes that militarizing the Intifada was a big mistake.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1076393704337&p=1006688055060

NOW he realizes it? I think he may have a future with George Tenet.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

1. funny that...

the wall is letting the light shine through...

[drdon326]

2. Really.

the wall going up seems to have caused a little
evaluation on their part.

bummer.

[Gimel]

3. Just a little mistake, folks

Just a little mistake to strike inside the Green Line. Can't we be friends, please?

At least it's more like the kind of talk we need.

[drdon326]

4. A dollar short.....

and a day late.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. It's too bad this view didn't prevail

Israel isn't going to be pushed into the sea. That is the first thing the Palestinians must realize. An independent, sovereign state in the West Bank and Gaza is an obtainable goal; driving Jews from the Levant is not.

We can work on the theory that the Palestinian militants have modeled their movement after the Algerian resistance of the 1950s and early 1960s. If one were to accept that point of view, terrorist attacks on Israelis inside the Green Line seem consistent with terrorist attacks on Pieds Noirs in Algeria. Of course, this point of view also assumes that Israel is nothing more than a colonial enterprise and that the Jews living in Israel are outlanders with a home to which they can return. This was the case of French Algeria and the Pieds Noirs, but not with the Israel and the Israeli Jews. There is no place for the Israeli Jews to return; for many, there is no other country of which they are citizens. They must make their stand where they are.

Any resolution to the conflict must begin with the realization that there are two nations west of the Jordan River and that any just resolution will have to accommodate both. Sheikh Yassin's pronouncement of not long ago that Israeli Jews must return to Europe is as absurd and monstrous as any talk by Israeli extremists of the transfer of Palestinian Arabs outside Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Attacks on civilians are war crimes regardless; attacks on Israeli civilians inside the Green Line are an attempt to deny the reality of two nations.

[mobuto]

6. I agree except the model isn't entirely apt either

The pied noirs were for the most part NOT French. They were the descendents of Northern Europeans (Danes, Dutch, etc.) who had settled in Algeria a hundred or more years before. They had no roots anywhere but Algeria, which was not technically a colony but a Department of Metropolitan France - the equivalent of a US State. France has had a lot of trouble resettling these people - (how do you go "home" after three or four generations?), and many of the problems Corisca has faced in the last forty years have been because of the tensions between the native population and the many displaced pied noirs who moved there.

But as for your other point, I agree - terrorist attacks inside the Green Line are not just crimes against humanity but are tactically stupid. Israel isn't going away - if the Palestinians want a country they're going to have to win over the Israeli public. And the Israeli public isn't going to be won over by being the target of random acts of barbarism. Abba Eban was right: those people never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. On the descendants of colonial settlers

The model used in southern Africa has been a much better one, although not perfect. Afrikaners were not sent back to the Netherlands from where their ancestors came; white Rhodesian farmers were not sent packing to Britain, although Mugabe has made questionable power plays on their rights in the last several years. It is also noteworthy that the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, regards himself fully as a Kenyan and speaks to the interests and concerns of his country.

We may regard colonialism as a crime with no more moral justification than slavery. However, we cannot justly do away with all its effects. The descendants of colonialists have no roots anywhere except where they were born. The sins of their forefathers should not be visited upon them.

[mobuto]

10. On an aside,

one of the ironies of South Africa is that the Afrikaners in some ways have as a good or better a "historical" claim to the country than the majority-blacks have, since the Cape was effectively unpopulated when Afrikaners first settled there four hundred years ago. (Significant black populations moved down from modern-day Zimbabwe and Botswana only in the 18th and 19th centuries).

That's an interesting historical factoid, but let me be clear that I do not believe that it has any relevence to the modern-day political situation in South Africa.

It is also noteworthy that the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, regards himself fully as a Kenyan and speaks to the interests and concerns of his country.

And Teresa Heinz can also legitimately claim to be an African-American. Leakey actually involves himself rather closely with Kenyan politics, I understand. He was active in the opposition to Daniel arap Moi.

We may regard colonialism as a crime with no more moral justification than slavery.

I'm not sure I'd go far, but having never lived in a colonial society, I'm not going to presume to lecture anyone on the effects of living under colonialism.

[drdon326]

7. Well....

"Attacks on civilians are war crimes regardless"

Attacks on ISRAELI civilians are war crimes regardless
as well.....and someone remind me....when did the ICJ
take up THAT issue?? hmmmm??

I guess they were too busy.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Response

Attacks on ISRAELI civilians are war crimes regardless as well . . .

I believe that is what I said; that should be clear in the context. I left the word Israeli out because any attack that targets any civilian population is a war crime. Indeed, terrorist attacks on Pieds Noirs in Algeria were war crimes.

when did the ICJ take up THAT issue?

Perhaps Israel should bring that matter to the Court. Perhaps they should use that as a defense in the present case rather than employ the "Ayatollah defense" before the Court, as they now seem intent on doing.

Again, the issue before the ICJ is not whether Israel has a right to build a fence, but whether Israel has the right to build the fence deep in occupied territory. In spite of some western opinions to the contrary, I believe this is a proper matter for the Court's jurisdiction and I will be interested in what the Court has to say about it.