Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Stop blaming Israel for every grievance in the Middle East

[shira]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Stop blaming Israel for every grievance in the Middle East
Why the double standards? We have an obligation to judge all governments and rulers by the same universal values

Monday, 2 May 2011


First came the Arab spring (followed, in some lands, by the harshest of winters) and now Hamas and Fatah have signed a deal for unity. Naturally, Israel is as panicked as are Arab despots by the shifts and quakes, the shaking ground beneath their boots. Israel depended on an everlasting, adamantine status quo. Nothing will ever be as it has been. Successive Israeli governments and their global cheerleaders and backers across the world are guilty of crimes against the humanity and rights of the Palestinian people, they who were made to pay for the European Holocaust. Hitler's unspeakable annihilation project can't be laid to rest and shouldn't. But excruciating historical experiences do not entitle a nation to grab land, to humiliate, to destroy the livelihoods of others and to expect no censure; in effect to be above international law.

I am as pro-Palestinian as the next leftie and try to do my bit; to speak up against repressive Israeli policies and acts, which is never easy, as many of us have had to learn. We go to protests against the collective punishments meted out in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine and on Arab citizens of Israel; others lobby influential people; the brave ones go on flotillas, and the less brave but committed refuse to buy Hass avocadoes and instead purchase olive oil from the West Bank. All of us need to stop and think, to use this moment of upheaval to scrutinise ourselves and our habituated responses to the Middle East.

For many years now, British and American Zionists have complained that progressives pick on Israel, expect higher standards from that government and most iniquitously, that any criticism of their land is in effect a lightly disguised and now approved expression of anti-Semitism. Using a combination of guilt, suggestion and aggression they have managed to, if not suppress, certainly inhibit fair and free debates on the Zionist nation. Think of it as global super injunction. The unreasonable, absolutist supporters of Israel include some crazies but are mostly highly educated, talented professionals and fierce advocates of free speech.These days they are heeded less and so are getting more strident. But what if some of their complaints are valid and justifiable? Do I dare think that, and then say it? And if I do, is that a betrayal of a righteous cause?

These thoughts have been spooling round and round in my head this last month. As Gaddafi systematically massacres his people and the country descends into civil war, as armies slaughter civilians in Yemen and Bahrain, now Syria, I ask why good people have focused only on Palestine/Israel for more than half a century and not attended to the brutality and oppression endemic in the Islamic states. Is it OK for dictators to do what they wish within their own borders to crush democratic demands? I think not, and strongly. No flotillas for their victims? One fact that is kept tightly sealed and buried is this: More Muslims are killed by their brethren in religious and power struggles than are killed by foreign powers and that, as far as I can ascertain is true even after the war on Iraq. It could be that some of the relentless focus on Israel does indeed rise out of a deep stream of anti-Semitism. It is also a useful displacement activity.

more...
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-stop-blaming-israel-for-every-grievance-in-the-middle-east-2277726.html

[shira]

1. Her concluding remarks...

It is no longer morally justifiable for activists to target only Israel and either ignore or find excuses for corrupt, murderous Arab despots. That kind of selectivity discredits pro-Palestinian campaigners and dishonours the principles of equality and human rights. It has enabled hideous Arab ruling clans to carry on disgracefully for too long.

[aquart]

3. No shit, Sherlock.

And never a question as to why Arab despots might LIKE to focus hatred on a Western style democracy with women's rights.

My, weren't the Palestinians convenient patsies. Any other displaced group (like all those people pouring out of Eastern Europe, etc.) would have long since been resettled in other nations with naturalization papers and LIVES. But the Palestinians have been refugees for over 60 years? For whose convenience YOU NEVER WONDERED?

What would open borders and commerce with Israel have meant for the Arab world? Why was it so important to keep them slammed shut and all Israel's fault? WHO BENEFITED? Could it be the "corrupt, murderous Arab despots" who bankrolled the Palestinian discontent?

SUCKERS.

[shira]

6. None of this is obvious to obsessed Israel bashers. n/t

[Ken Burch]

12. Nobody bankrolled the Palestinian resistance

You know perfectly well that there would never have been any circumstances in which Palestinians would have been content to have the Occupation just go on forever.

[shira]

17. You mean like Iran doesn't bankroll Hamas resistance?

If mideast dictatorships were more progressive/liberal, they'd encourage Hamas and the PLO to be the same and agree to offers from Barak and Olmert, which would end the conflict.

Instead, what we see is far Rightwing extreme governments encouraging perpetual war vs. Israel. They need Israel as their scapegoat.

See, there's a reason it's difficult being a true liberal/progressive in the mideast. You get shot or killed for trying to exercise your basic civil liberties. Dictatorships HATE liberals/progressives and that's a major reason why they hate Israel.

[Ken Burch]

33. I'm talking about the long-standing Palestinian resistance that pre-dates Hamas

It's not as if, were it not for the other Arab countries, the Palestinians would have been perfectly content to live under the Occupation.

And it's not as if they'd settle for that if Hamas vanished-or that they'd accept the permanent existence of the West Bank settlements.

And the only way to get rid of the Arab dictatorships is to support the grassroots Arab democracy movement-the one you REFUSE to support. It's not as if Arab countries could have democracy through U.S. intervention but NOT through an uprising of the Arab people themselves.

[shira]

39. Me too. Ultra-conservative, far rightwing totalitarian fascist Arab dictatorships have always...

...supported Palestinian intransigence WRT never wanting a Jewish state to exist in any part of the original Palestinian mandate.

Palestinians could have had their own state many times since 1937.

Their leaders since then think it's more important to deny Jews their own state.

[kayecy]

4. Shira - Looks like pelsar has gone off on an undercover mission so.....

I promised to come back to your question, but I thought I'd do it here to avoid confusion when pelsar comes back.

Your question was:

Kayecy, how is setting up a free, representative democracy dominating others?

I can see how a totalitarian dictatorship fits that bill, but a democracy in which Palestinians could feel free to participate and have the entire civil rights package?

Can you explain yourself?

Answer: It needn’t be....Had the early Zionists tried to set up a free, representative democracy (with universal sufferage) anytime before 1939, they would have had the support of most anti-zionists and I believe Palestinians and they would have been dominating no one.

However, do you think the Zionists would have accepted such a democracy (which, with a Palestinian majority, would have immediately canceled Balfour) and where the Zionists were not, and never would be, in the majority?


What in fact the Zionists did was to arrive as immigrants to Palestine, determined to create a homeland with a JEWISH majority........ Hence the conflict.

Does that answer your question?


Now, could I ask you a question of my own?.
Question: I assume you are for a 2-state solution...If such a solution comes to pass and you are asked to state what you think is a fair and reasonable border between the two states, what would your answer be?....Why do you think your choice is fair and reasonable to both sides?
.
.

[shira]

5. You're assuming that a Jewish state would've expelled or limited the rights of an Arab majority...

There was never a significant movement to expel any Arabs or limit their rights within any Jewish state - whether with a minority or majority Palestinian population.

The fact is that the Mufti Al-Husayni rejected a binational state. He wanted totalitarian rule all to himself as he and his gang were against joining in any liberal type democracy. Do you REALLY think totalitaritarian rule would have been good for Palestinians? I really believe if Palestinians were serious about a binational democratic, secular, liberal state over 70 years ago, the Jews would have agreed and there wouldn't have been an Israel as we know it today. At worst, however, if a binational state started then - assuming the Mufti and his henchmen weren't serious about sharing in a genuine democracy - there would probably have been a civil war and eventually a separate Jewish state where virtually the same situation would exist today.

How do you believe the early Zionists would have achieved a Jewish majority? Arab immigration was never limited.

At this point, a fair and reasonable border would be based on UNSCR 242 and extremely similar to the Barak/Olmert offers. I truly think it's fair to both sides. If the Palestinians and their leadership were more liberal and were truly dedicated to a secular, liberal democracy - both by word and deed - I wouldn't mind the Palestinian state taking up more than the Barak/Olmert offers. I really don't think borders would be an issue in that case. That type of Palestinian leadership would be more interested in their own state and domestic affairs and wouldn't be nearly as hardline as the current leadership.

What do YOU believe a fair and reasonable border would be, and would it be fair and reasonable to both sides?

[kayecy]

13. You asked...how is setting up a free, representative democracy dominating others?.....

Your question was:

...how is setting up a free, representative democracy dominating others?

You then asked me:

How do you believe the early Zionists would have achieved a Jewish majority? .

I don't think the early Zionists could have achieved a Jewish majority......But the very fact that they attempted to do so was an attempt to DOMINATE the indigenous locals.

Even pelsar admits that ".....the creation of a western socialistic country required zionist domination...."

Now the ball is in your court.....Can you explain how immigrants flooding into a land with the clear intention of achieving an ethnic majority against the wishes of the locals, can be anything other than a attempt to 'dominate others'?

At this point, a fair and reasonable border would be based on UNSCR 242 and extremely similar to the Barak/Olmert offers.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how do you answer the Palestinian who says why UNSCR 242 and not the earlier 181?....At the time, 181 was claimed by Israel as making its new state legitimate.

The ICJ has since reviewed the matter and stated:
"The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 and subsequently confirmed."
.
.

[shira]

18. I answered all your questions. Can you please answer all mine first before I respond back? n/t

[kayecy]

20. I thought I had answered you....Let me try and clarify.....

I thought I had....Let me try and clarify.....
Your original question was:

How do you believe the early Zionists would have achieved a Jewish majority? Arab immigration was never limited.

My answer: It needn’t be....Had the early Zionists tried to set up a free, representative democracy (with universal suffrage) anytime before 1939, they would have had the support of most anti-zionists and I believe Palestinians and they would have been dominating no one.

I expanded on my answer as follows:... do you think the Zionists would have accepted such a democracy (which, with a Palestinian majority, would have immediately canceled Balfour) and where the Zionists were not, and never would be, in the majority?

Does that completely answers your original question?





My original question was:
".. you are asked to state what you think is a fair and reasonable border between the two states, what would your answer be?....Why do you think your choice is fair and reasonable to both sides?"

You replied:

At this point, a fair and reasonable border would be based on UNSCR 242 and extremely similar to the Barak/Olmert offers.

You then asked a new original question:

What do YOU believe a fair and reasonable border would be, and would it be fair and reasonable to both sides?

I thought your question was a new one as it was not relevant to my original question... Nevertheless I did answer you:
"...I'm not disagreeing with you....."
As you had not responded to my 'why' request I expanded on it as follows:
"... but how do you answer the Palestinian who says why UNSCR 242 and not the earlier 181?....At the time, 181 was claimed by Israel as making its new state legitimate."

Your reply to this request for clarification was to repeat your previous irrelevant question:

What do YOU believe a fair and reasonable border would be, and would it be fair and reasonable to both sides?

Something is obviously making you unhappy, so I will try to clarify my original question further:
I do not disagree with you if you mean that a fair border would be one based on the pre-1967 Green Line.....I have no strong feelings about where the border should be, but a Palestinian friend asked me why the 181, resolution (the only one to have a clear designation of Israel's border) should not be the fair and reasonable future border?... I had no answer....I was hoping, as someone with a vested interest in this conflict, you could give me an answer to my friend's question.
.

[shira]

21. The problem seems to be false perceptions of what Zionism intended...

1. Although the hope was to have a Jewish majority for a future Israel, there was no harm in that for the locals.
2. Early Zionist leaders did everything they could to work with the Ottoman empire, the British, LoN, and UN. All intentions were made clear and there was never an intention nor was there anything ever put into practice that would lead to domination, subjugation, disenfranchisement, or expulsion of the local Arabs.
3, As early as the 1920's, when there was still a sizeable Arab majority, the 'Zionists' encouraged Arabs to take part in a democracy. Arab leadership, led by the Mufti at that time, was against this from the start.

I think the biggest problem was the Mufti violently taking over Palestinian leadership and leading it to misery and failure. With moderate leadership, Israel would be a FAR different country today.

As for UNRES 181, the Arabs rejected it. What's better about it now than back then? Personally I'd have no problem with 181 so long as it leads to genuine peace. At this time, it wouldn't.

The issue IMO isn't so much land and borders but that Palestinian leadership is still against any Jewish state in the region, whether within the UNSCR242 parameters or 181. This is the reason why the issue of Right-of-Return won't be dropped.

To get back to your argument, the difference b/w Jewish "domination" and Palestinian "domination" is clear. The Jews are more than willing to share in a real, genuine, liberal democracy that provides a safe haven to all Jews worldwide. If it were clear that the PLO and Hamas would agree to that - all would be great. They will never agree to that, however, as that's anathema to their ultra-conservative rightwing, totalitarian views. They believe domination means elites in power dominate and everyone else is disenfranchised, like what we see throughout the mideast. A one-state solution at this point will never work. If Arab leadership were genuinely committed to liberal, progressive values - different story altogether.

When you ask Zionists to understand Hamas' POV, you're asking us to understand it's okay for Hamas to be, to rule, to dominate as they do now - and subjugate and treat Jews even worse than they treat, women, gays, and other religious minorities. Accept Hamas' regressive views. Accept full Right of Return and the destruction of Israel. We can't.

Let me know if I'm still unclear.

[kayecy]

22. Now we are getting somewhere...................

1. Although the hope was to have a Jewish majority for a future Israel, there was no harm in that for the locals.

An odd statement indeed......As I said, if refugee Jews had applied to come to my country I would expect my government to accept them...However, if the refugees had arrived with a piece of paper from a foreign power saying they had a right to create a Jewish homeland in my country, I would have fought them (as in fact the indigenous Palestinians did) all the way.......I think you too would have protested.

2. .... there was never an intention nor was there anything ever put into practice that would lead to domination, subjugation, disenfranchisement, or expulsion of the local Arabs.

How do you reconcile this strange claim in view the Balfour Declaration? ".... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." ...Note the protection of Jewish political rights but only Arab civil rights.

I am wondering what has led you to think that a flood of Jewish refugees entering a country with the clear intention of becoming the majority does not constitute anything other than "domination or disenfranchisement"?....Do you have any references to support your belief?

...Personally I'd have no problem with 181 so long as it leads to genuine peace. At this time, it wouldn't.

Thank you for answering my question......A very reasonable position, although I have to disagree with your last sentence....If Israel made such an offer, I am confidant it would indeed lead to real peace and reconcilliation.
.

[shira]

26. But Jews didn't come to Palestine with a piece of paper from a foreign power...

They came after negotiating reasonable terms with the Ottomans, British, LoN, and UN. They came to live in peace. No one called for anything evil or nasty WRT the Arab populace there. There were no calls for a dominating totalitarian leadership that would subjugate the non-jewish population.

I believe non-jewish Arab moderates and their leadership knew this but unfortunately they were 'dominated' and ultimately doomed by the Mufti and his henchmen. You're just repeating false Mufti propaganda and telling me I should try understanding his racist and bigoted POV and those who followed him.

As to 181, there's simply no way current Palestinian leadership would accept that without RoR. They rejected 181 over 60 years ago for the same reason they'd reject it again. They will not abide a Jewish state on any piece of the original Palestinian Mandate. It's not and has never been a simple border dispute. It's religious.

[kayecy]

29. You are entitled to believe anything you wish, but if you can't support your beliefs with references

They came after negotiating reasonable terms with the Ottomans, British, LoN, and UN.

Everyone, in fact, except the indigenous inhabitants.....No one cared a damn whether they thought they were being dominated or dis-enfranchised.

There were no calls for a dominating totalitarian leadership that would subjugate the non-jewish population.

You are entitled to believe anything you wish, but if you can't support your beliefs with references, there is no point in my debating the matter with you.

You have failed to explain why Balfour gave no protection to Arab political rights.

You have failed to explain why pelsar should support my claim that Zionists were bent on domination.

Let me try one more time to get you to support your belief.....The following is an extract from a paper by one of the leading 1923 Zionist intellectuals, Jabotinsky:

" There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding"......The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want."

[shira]

31. I need sources to show the Zionists never intended totalitarian rule subjugating the non-Jews?

Seriously?

As to the non-Jewish indigenous inhabitants, there was and still exists no precedent WRT a referendum on whether they were okay with what their representatives - like the Ottomans - agreed to. The fact is, all other mideast states were politically carved out of the former Ottoman empire and given over to totalitarian dictatorial rule that TRULY dominated and subjugated every other indigenous population - even the Palestinians of Jordan - and still does to this day. For example, Syria was given to Alawite rule while Jordan was given to the Hashemites. I don't see you calling for a referendum there - WHY? They're ruled by minorities and totally disenfranchised, as the Arab "Spring" proves.

You have failed to explain why Balfour gave no protection to Arab political rights.

What are you talking about? The declaration states "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That seems like protection of Arab political rights to me. In fact, the Zionists did more than any other post-Ottoman rulers to ensure the rights of Arabs in the mideast.

You have failed to explain why pelsar should support my claim that Zionists were bent on domination.

You mean when the choice is between both Jews and Arabs living under totalitarian rule or living in a liberal democracy? If moderate Palestinian leadership chose to work with the Jews, as the Ottomans and King Faisal had wished, why would there ever be a "battle" over domination via democracy or totalitarianism? Think about it. If moderate Palestinian leadership prevailed and chose to work with Zionists in a democracy, this is all a completely different story - right? What would you complain about?

I don't believe Pelsar and I disagree. Due to the Mufti, the only choice was for Jews to fight for liberal democracy. Before the Mufti, there shouldn't have been any fight whatsoever, as you've admitted yourself that Palestinians would have probably agreed to join in a representative, secular, liberal democracy. I don't have any reason to believe that if THAT's what they wished, they would have voted to deliberately keep Jewish immigration down. Why would liberals/progressives do that? The Ottomans and Faisal didn't have a problem with a majority Jewish state, so why would reasonable Palestinians have a problem with this? You're pretending they held views like the Mufti before he took over. I'm not.

Let me try one more time to get you to support your belief.....The following is an extract from a paper by one of the leading 1923 Zionist intellectuals, Jabotinsky:

" There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding"......The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want."

So? Once again, participation in a liberal, secular democracy is not domination by any definition. Why don't you give me a good reason as to why Palestinians were always against representing themselves, participating in a genuine democracy, all having equal rights and civil liberties? Why do you think it was better for them to choose ultra-conservative, 3rd world rightwing Arab totalitarian rule over that? What would have made the Mufti a better choice to dominate them than actually participating in a liberal, representative democracy?

You're essentially being a megaphone for ultra-conservative, 3rd world rightwing totalitarian rule - speaking on behalf of Hamas or the Mufti - making their case for them. We should "understand" and "accept" that what the indigenous non-Jewish population of Palestine really wanted - even before the Mufti violently took over and eliminated all secular, liberal Arab opposition - that Palestinians generally preferred Mufti rule to liberal democracy. That's what you want me to empathize with, right?

I want to know what you think Israel should do NOW that would ensure peace between all parties in the mideast? As though the Jews can come to terms with all major factions of the mideast when THEY can't even get along with each other (like the MB vs. the nationalists or Baathists). What do you think Israel could REALLY do to right all wrongs but still exist as a Jewish state? Otherwise, what's the point of this conversation, to show that Israel should just commit national suicide in order to make amends?

[kayecy]

59. If you willfully misunderstand Balfour....... ............ .............

What are you talking about? The declaration states "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." That seems like protection of Arab political rights to me.

Do you understand the difference between "civil rights" and "political rights"?......Balfour clearly does because it protects Jewish Political rights but neglects Arab Political rights.

I don't believe Pelsar and I disagree.

You no doubt also believe black is white.

So? Once again, participation in a liberal, secular democracy is not domination by any definition

You seem to have difficulty understanding plain english......I have said twice (supported by Jabotinsky) that the very fact that Zionists attempted to achieve an ethnic majority was an attempt to DOMINATE the indigenous locals......You have offered no explanation as to why you believe flooding a land with alien immigrants bent on achieving an ethnic majority is anything other than domination.


You started this discussion by asking:

Kayecy, how is setting up a free, representative democracy dominating others?......Can you explain yourself?

I think I have explained myself.......If you willfully misunderstand Balfour, believe black is white, are not prepared to read what I have said, and you think a satisfactory response is to keep repeating your own idiosyncratic belief without quoting references, there is no point in my trying to help you further.....



Please do not ask me to explain myself again....I leave it to others to waste their time debating your nonsensical views.
.
.

[shira]

60. Protecting the civil rights of the non-Jews means they were free to exercise their political rights

....by being part of a representative, liberal democracy. That's the opposite of being dominated. How do you protect the civil rights of people but bar them from taking part in the political process?

I think you actually believe that is worse than Palestinians ACTUALLY being dominated under Mufti or other 3rd world, ultra-conservative, rightwing Arab fascist rule.

And this is what Zionists should apologize for.

Am I right?

[shira]

64. Balfour was a means for Arabs to have political and civil rights

Without Balfour, Palestinians would be dominated and subjected to fascist rightwing rule without any political or civil rights.

It's odd that a "progressive" like yourself prefers such a situation.

I'd ask you to explain why you're being a mouthpiece for the MB/Hamas, fascist, ultra-conservative rightwing POV but you're not really interested in justifying your own views.

[Ken Burch]

50. The Ottomans were occupiers. They had no right to negotiate on behalf of the Arabs of Palestine

Neither did the UN, NOR the British, Nor the League of Nations, Nor the UN. The Arabs of Palestine should have been included in the negotiations themselves.

And if you're going to keep bringing up the Grand Mufti...you need to blame the British for him. The Palestinian Muslims never wanted him as Mufti(the "grand" was added by the Mandatory authorities as a sop to his bloated ego), and he finished a weak fourth in the vote Palestinian Muslims took about who THEY wanted in that position.

The Grand Mufti was the responsibility of Herbert Samuel.

[shira]

52. So why didn't all mideast nations get to vote on who their leaders were?

The Palestinians of Jordan certainly didn't vote the Hashemites into power, but I don't see you or anyone else concerned about their disenfranchisement.

[Ken Burch]

53. Progressives are supporting the Arab democracy movements.

There wasn't much of anything we could have done before those movements emerged. One culture can't impose democracy on another culture from outside.

[shira]

55. You should support genuine democracy, not the right to vote the MB into power...

...to make Arab life more miserable than it currently is.

[Ken Burch]

57. The MB had almost nothing to do with the anti-Mubarak movement.

It's not like it could be legitimately democratic to bar the MB from contesting the elections.

The only reason the MB has ANY strength in Egypt is that all other opposition groups were totally suppressed under Mubarak. Mubarak was never going to start allowing other opposition groups AFTER barring them for all those years.

Elections are the best way to create alternatives TO the MB. Keeping Mubarak in power could never have prevented the MB from gaining strength.

[shira]

63. Yet somehow, they'll gain much more representation in the government, influencing its policies....

...and it's the MB from which al-Qaeda and Hamas originated.

Nice group of progressive folks there.

The situation will get worse but you're all for it.

[Ken Burch]

65. It couldn't have been made better by trying to save Mubarak

You DO understand that the entire population of Egypt wanted Mubarak out, don't you?

When that happens, NOBODY can legitimately be kept in power.

And it's not sure that things have to get worse.

You just haven't given up on the "good tyrant" model...even though there can't be such a thing as a good tyrant.

If the people of Egypt wanted revolution...nobody had the right to deny it to them.

[Ken Burch]

54. They should have, but that's beside the point

The dictatorships in the Arab countries do NOT mean that the Palestinians had no legitimate grievances.

[shira]

56. Unlike other disenfranchised Arabs around the mideast, Palestinians were offered their own state

....but they rejected it each and every time and twice within the last decade - offers that would end the occupation and settlements.

Why?

[Shaktimaan]

78. Do you think you might be looking at...

21st century progressive political thinking and demanding that it should have been imposed during the 19th and 20th centuries?

You are insisting on a level of self-determination and nationalism that simply did not exist at the time we are discussing. Worse, you are looking at this multi-ethnic place where no "melting-pot" ethos existed and are attributing the wills and desires of the largest tribe to the entire population.

Sure, lots of Arabs lived there. Why does that mean that the entire region belongs to them? Did they organize themselves politically? Did they build a state there? Did they even own most of the land? (No.) So why is it exclusively theirs? If the UN had no right to negotiate on their behalf then why do they have to right to claim all of the land they could see for their tribe alone?

[Shaktimaan]

80. 181?

Surely you jest. 181 was a document drawn for a different time, under vastly different circumstances. The benefit of embracing such a compromise would have been its smooth implementation. Peace. No endless war.

At this stage of the game it seems quite unlikely that the Palestinians can make this offer. The war has been ongoing for some time.

So then, for the privilege of allowing the Palestinians a return to the blackjack table following their 65 years losing streak to have themselves a "do over"; what would such an agreement do to benefit the Israelis?

[Shaktimaan]

79. I think you are looking at this in a simplistic way.

Essentially you're saying "The Jews came with every intention of dominating Palestine. The Arabs feared subjugation, thus weren't they within their rights to resist the Zionist enterprise?"

The obvious answer is "Sure. They could do exactly what they did do. And end up exactly where they are now. Big deal." Obviously, had the locals acted with greater foresight they could now be leading the Middle East instead of being thankful that they have not yet been entirely crushed underneath it.

I think the question you're really itching to ask is "Did the Zionists ever have the right to go there in the first place and try and make a Jewish state, knowing that they would encounter resistance from some locals? The Arabs lost, but was justice done? Aka: So the Arabs attacked... Did the Jews really have the right to do THIS to them in response?"

[whosinpower]

7. Come on

We both know that Israel prefers stability first and foremost - and if that happens to be in a neighborhood of "hideous arab ruling clans" - so be it.

http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7965

headline - Israeli officials want a public commitment from Washington to protect the Saudi regime should it come under threat..

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-urges-world-to-curb-criticism-of-egypt-s-mubarak-1.340238

headline - Israel urges world to curb criticism of Egypt's Mubarak

You can't have it both ways - and I fully understand the difficult position Israel finds itself in given the Arab Spring. If the people rise up and oust their "hideous ruling clan" - there is no guarentee that the result will be any better in regards to human rights and equality. So - what are we to do.....if we protest against human rights in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Tunesia, Egypt - those clans may fall - and this WILL cause instability, which is worrying....and if we don't protest we are hypocrites for ignoring obvious abuses.

[shira]

8. Western criticism and protest isn't exactly a call for revolution. n/t

[Ken Burch]

11. A fight against Hamas wouldn't be a revolution-it would just be a power struggle

And what you don't seem to get is that every time Israeli supporters rant about "Hamas, Hamas, Hamas", they make it that much harder for Palestinians to organize against Hamas.

That decision needs to be left to them.

[shira]

15. A fight? How about just criticism and protest vs. Hamas? You're against that? n/t

[Ken Burch]

34. I do criticize Hamas and oppose their tactics

I can't support it when the Israeli government does that, though, because they just entrench Hamas when they go on and on about it.

[shira]

40. The author of the OP doesn't think leftists criticize Hamas nearly as much as they should. n/t

[Ken Burch]

43. Evidently so.

Well, the author thinks what the author thinks.

The point remains though...if there hadn't been a long-standing military Occupation AND the creation of the settlers' movement, Hamas would never have had the influence it has now.

And the worst possible way to stop Hamas is to do what Netanyahu and Livni and Ehud Barak, the Defense-Minister-For-Life, keep doing...settlement expansion and continued collective punishment. Those things are NEVER going to cause a Palestinian uprising against Hamas.

[whosinpower]

23. Are you sure about that?

There is no way that whatever Hamas does - Israel will trust its intentions. I think we can both agree with that.

Therefore - if we protest and criticize Hamas knowing full well that they can do nothing to fix the mess they are in - the only satisfiable conclusion is a change in government - and that requires revolution.

It is the same thing with these despotic regimes. If we protest and criticize them, is there any reasonable expectation that they will miraculously change their spots and become responsible, progressive, inclusive regimes? No? Then the only reasonable satisfiable conclusion is that there must be a change in government - and that requires revolution because they will not give up power without a fight.

[shira]

24. Okay, so what's the solution?

If you give these despotic regimes what they want, they'll just want more.

How far do you go?

Or why give them anything if it makes little difference?

[whosinpower]

27. The Op is flawed

I am simply pointing out that.

The general flavour of the op is that we should stop blamng Israel and there are far worse more despotic regimes in the area....

And Israel itself is in a pickle as it would rather have a known quantity of a despotic regime over an unknown quantity of a democratic arab state. It is unfortunate that its diplomats stated this, and in doing so disregards the current state of life those citizens face under those despotic regimes.

[shira]

28. Disagree. Universal human rights are just that...

Those suffering under the totalitarian boot of despotic regimes with atrocious domestic human rights records deserve to have outspoken advocates speaking out for them.

Look what International pressure did to get Mubarak to stop killing citizens and step down out of power.

It can work.

[whosinpower]

30. So you in disagreement

With the state of Israel voicing support of Mubarek - even though it may lead to the muslim brotherhood taking over?

And also with them wanting a guarentee that Saudi Arabia would be protected?

[shira]

32. Israel isn't against criticism of Mubarak or the Saudi regime.

They'd rather not see an overthrow into something worse but that doesn't mean they're against all criticism.

I bet they'd be 100% for each government deciding to rewrite their constitutions and becoming at least as secular and democratic as Turkey has been the past 50 years. Turkey's hardly a liberal democracy as theirs is a partly-free or somewhat closed society WRT civil/human rights, but that's VASTLY better than what Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been.

[Ken Burch]

36. You're assuming that nothing good could come from overthrowing Mubarak

And what was the point of criticizing him when he was never going to allow democracy no matter what?

The ONLY human and moral choice was to get out of the way of the people's will.

Egypt is still in process and it's too soon to say that nothing good will come of it.

It isn't too soon, however, to say that Mubarak couldn't have been kept in power no matter what, and that no good could've come of keeping him there, since he was completely incapable of change.

[shira]

41. How do you know criticizing Mubarak and pressuring change wouldn't have made a difference?

It was never really attempted.

[Ken Burch]

42. The Egyptian people had been doing that the whole time he'd been in power

All he did was to arrest everybody who did.

And, from what I've seen, the Israeli government itself never condemned Mubarak for his dictatorial ways.

It's likely that the reason the Muslim Brotherhood gained in strength during the Mubarak years was that some people thought(prior to this spring)that throwing in with THEM was the only way to get Mubarak out.

That's what worked in Khomeini's favor in Iran, as well.

And it probably played a significant role in events in South Vietnam in the 1960's.

[shira]

46. I'm talking outside pressure from the left, peace movements, international community.

Carrots and sticks, etc...

How do you know relentless outside criticism and pressure wouldn't have worked?

And why are you so against it?

[Ken Burch]

47. I'm not against it. But I don't accept the idea

that is was MORE important for progressives to speak out against Arab police states than it was for them to support the Palestinian people.

That's what this article about...it's about trying to get Bibi and CO. off the hook and about pretending that the Occupation and the settlements have nothing to do with the continued existence of the Palestinian resistance.

As to "continued pressure"...the only thing that was going to matter to those Arab states was what their own people did. The people had to rise before any chance of democracy could exist. They had to psychically free themselves. Democracy can't be imposed from outside, and it especially can't be imposed on the Arab/Muslim world through force of Western will.

[shira]

48. You said it all right there. Quoting you...

"But I don't accept the idea that is was MORE important for progressives to speak out against Arab police states than it was for them to support the Palestinian people."

You're not for universal human rights.

The rights of hundreds of millions of mideast civilians are not as important to you as the rights of Palestinians.

The Palestinians are more human than hundreds of millions of Arabs in the mideast.

[Ken Burch]

49. I'm for their rights...and I'm equally for the rights of the Palestinians

You just want the Netanyahu and Livni let off the hook.

And it's enough that I support the Arab democratic movements. Nothing could have changed in those countries UNTIL the people themselves were ready to stand up. Change can never be imposed from outside. The Arab people had to take the first step, and now they have.

[shira]

51. LOL...the Arab dictatorships like Mubarak, Assad, etc. love keeping the focus only on Israel

...in order to keep the focus off themselves. Don't you realize they LOVE what you're doing? Whether Netanyahu or Rabin is in office.

Not that they have a special place in their hearts for leftists or liberals, who they routinely imprison or kill for having such views - so you'd get killed or imprisoned every bit as fast as the 2 activists who were recently disposed of.

You can't say you're for the rights of 100's of millions of Arabs as equally as you are for Palestinians when you've just admitted it wasn't worth your time to criticize these Arab regimes over the past few decades for what they've done to their own populace - which is 100x worse than anything Israel has done.

And it's clearly NOT enough that you support Arab democratic movements that are likely to put the MB into power.

[Ken Burch]

58. What do you want?

It could never be pro-democracy to insist that the MB be barred from contesting the elections. Doing that couldn't have any other effect but to give them a cachet as "rebels" that they don't deserve.

In an actual election, the MB wouldn't do that well, especially since there would be several other parties. What gave the MB its strength was the perception, a perception that existed for decades, that they were the alternative force with the strength to challenge Mubarak. That perception vanishes once actual multi-party elections are underway.

And it certainly could never have been the pro-democracy choice to back Mubarak against the Egyptian people.

It would be pointless and right wing to spend MORE time criticizing Arab dictatorships than in supporting the Palestinian people. And it could never have served any purpose to criticize the Arab dictatorships BEFORE the Arab democracy movements emerged. Western people aren't entitled to demand that a different culture democratize. Only the people of that culture can make that happen, and then we support them.

It's not like democracy could have been imposed on the Arab world by force of Western arms or anything. And again, what you're really about is trying to get people to accept your notion that what happens in Arab countries matters and what Israel does to the Palestinians doesn't. I'm equally for freedom for those fighting for democracy in the Arab world AND for the people of Palestine. I don't have to spend MORE time going after the Arab countries than the Occupation to prove that. The Occupation is not trivial.

[shira]

61. You think it would have been rightwing to spend more time criticizing Arab dicatatorships

....for the past few decades, trying to help and speak up for the 100's of millions suffering under their brutal rule?

[shira]

62. What I want is genuine democracy, not totalitarian rule.

You seem to be okay with totalitarian rule, so long as the people vote their dictators in.

I don't find that position "progressive" in the least. That's not real democracy. It's dangerous for the citizens voting fascist dictators into power AND it's dangerous to the rest of the neighborhood, like Israel, who will be scapegoated for everything wrong in a totalitarian society - in order to deflect criticism.

[Ken Burch]

66. I'm not ok with totalitarian rule.

But history has proven that no dictator ever evolves in to a non-dictator.

Mubarak had to be let go when the people wanted him gone.

[oberliner]

67. What about Gaddafi? And Assad?

Is it time for them to go as well?

[Ken Burch]

68. Seems to be. The people of those countries are taking care of it.

But it can't be appropriate for U.S. troops to get involved, because that turns it into imperialism and gives the tyrants a chance to rally people that they otherwise wouldn't have had.

[oberliner]

69. Are they?

Last time I checked both leaders were still in place.

Mubarak was removed with great speed.

[Ken Burch]

70. They were better prepared, I guess. What's your point?

You can't seriously accuse me of being pro-Qadaffi or pro-Assad.

[oberliner]

71. You wrote that you were "not ok" with totalitarian rule

I'm wondering what, if anything, ought to be done about it.

If the people in the countries that are under totalitarian rule are not able to achieve their freedom on their own, should any steps be taken to assist them?

Do you support the outside intervention in Libya for example and do you think something similar should happen anywhere else, like Syria, for instance?

[Ken Burch]

72. We need to show solidarity with those people, as progressives did with the anti-apartheid movement

in South Africa.

I'd support UN peacekeepers being sent in(provided that their rules of engagement were changed so that their presence would actually be useful).


The problem is, once U.S. forces go into one of these places, liberation ceases to happen. It all gets reduced to OUR "national interests" and shit like that. It gets poisoned.


It should also be remembered that the people of Eastern Europe stood up to their tyrannical occupiers without use of Western arms. This required the emergence of a Soviet leader who was willing to make it clear that he wouldn't send in the Red Army to subdue the populace again. If they had been sent in, the Warsaw Pact would exist forever, sadly. No amount of rhetoric about wall removal and no amount of nuclear warheads would have made any difference.

So I don't have an absolute answer to this.

I want Qadaffi out...but I have no reason to trust my own country's leaders with being pro-liberation and pro-democracy if they did send in ground troops or something like that.

[oberliner]

73. Strange that progressives have given so little attention to these regimes until lately

As opposed to the anti-apartheid movement.

Seems that there have been scant voices in support of freedom from the oppressive regimes in Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc until now.

Even now it doesn't really compare to what we saw during the anti-apartheid movement.

[Ken Burch]

74. Ah...your agenda is revealed.

Like shira, you want people to ONLY attack the Arab states and let Israel off the hook for the Occupation.

This was about pushing people to denounce the Arab dictatorships, places where outside criticism would always have been meaningless and useless since change was impossible before the Arab uprisings of this spring in order to get them to stop talking about what the IDF does to Palestinians.

The thing is, it isn't "either/or".

What if you feel the Arab democratic movements need support AND the Palestinians have a right to self-determination? What if you feel that Palestinian grievances against the Occupation are just as valid as those of rank-and-file Arabs against their governments?

You don't give a damn about the people of the Arab world. You just want a distraction from the situation in the West Bank.

The ONLY time it was going to make sense to speak out about the Arab states was when there was actually a possibility of change. To speak out when change was impossible was about as useful as U.S. State Department denunciations of repression in Eastern Europe in the 1950's.

[oberliner]

76. There is no agenda - it is a geniune question/observation

I don't understand - and have never understood - why movements to draw attention to the horrors of dictatorships around the world (from Gaddafi in Libya to Mugabe in Zimbabwe) seem to have a hard time gaining traction among a wider swath of people who are passionate about human rights.

Some movements - like the anti-apartheid movement against South Africa you cited - manage to take hold in a way that others do not.

Why not the same sort of energy against other similarly oppressive regimes that exist today worldwide?

[Ken Burch]

10. That's why progressives, unlike YOU, SUPPORT the Arab democracy movements

You can't be against "corrupt, murderous Arab despots" AND denounce the people who are trying to free their countries from those despots.

And clearly those despots, loathesome as they are, are NOT responsible for the Palestinian resistance to the Occupation. There was NEVER going to be any possible way, no matter what, that Palestinians would accept permanent Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. And you know it.

[shira]

14. I support genuine democracy, not something worse than what already exists.

Those despots are responsible for Palestinian resistance.

Who else is keeping millions of refugees in ghettos and camps for multiple generations?

Who else is bankrolling Hamas if not Iran and Syria? Or pressuring the PLO to remain hardline?

[Ken Burch]

37. The only chance Egypt had for genuine democracy was overthrowing Mubarak

There was no way keeping him on with absolute power could ever have led to an evolution to freedom.

If the man hadn't democratized in thirty years, he was never going to.

Can you please accept that it's pointless to say that Mubarak should have been defended, and that he couldn't have survived no matter what?

And it's not about bankrolling the resistance. Even if the Palestinian refugees were let out of the camps(and I agree that they should be)they would ALL still want to go home. None of them would ever have accepted exile as their natural station in life. And nobody in the West Bank would have accepted the Occupation and the settlements as things they were just going to have to placidly accept.

I swear, shira, you sound like those "Lost Cause" Southern historians who insist that, if it weren't for them dadburn Yankee abolitionists, the slaves would still be a-singin' and a-dancin' in dem ol' cotton fields back home.

NOBODY accepts subjugation as their God-given place in the universe. No exiles ever give of the dream of return. It's absurd to blame that on "the Arab dictatorships".

[shira]

44. How do you know when the human rights community let him off the hook for the most part?

Maybe if the human rights community listened to the people of Egypt years ago and focused on Egypt as much as they focused on Israel, Mubarak would have changed.

And it's not about bankrolling the resistance. Even if the Palestinian refugees were let out of the camps(and I agree that they should be)they would ALL still want to go home.

Polls show most want citizenship and equal rights in the countries they were born in and that they would not choose to go to Israel.

pb

I agree and that's why the so-called human rights community has utterly failed them, by allowing them to rot where they are.

And nobody in the West Bank would have accepted the Occupation and the settlements as things they were just going to have to placidly accept.

They don't have to accept it. All they need to do is agree to their own state, side by side in peace with Israel. Since 1937 they've had many opportunities.


NOBODY accepts subjugation as their God-given place in the universe. No exiles ever give of the dream of return. It's absurd to blame that on "the Arab dictatorships".

Obviously, the PA accepts subjugation as they turned down 2 credible peace offers in the last decade that would have granted Palestinians their own state free of occupation and settlements.

Why did they reject those deals?

[Shaktimaan]

75. interesting post

There was no way keeping him on with absolute power could ever have led to an evolution to freedom.

I think it is less about defending a dictatorship than it is about expressing a very healthy fear of what's to come next. Everyone cheered when the corrupt monarchy in Cambodia was deposed only to see it replaced by a far more corrupt and painfully inept Lon Nol government. They cheered again when Lon Nol and Lon Non were deposed by the Khmer Rouge. Which famously led them to a point so grim that they welcomed the eventual takeover by their historical enemies, the Vietnamese. Which then led to being governed by Hun Sen. Point being: don't confuse the ownership of a healthy pessimism with actually defending Mubarak.

Even if the Palestinian refugees were let out of the camps(and I agree that they should be)they would ALL still want to go home. None of them would ever have accepted exile as their natural station in life.

Well, at this point you're talking about a population that has built its entire national identity around the idea of returning to a homeland that was stolen from them. As a group they were given very different protocols than most refugees. Their identity, their education, their varied political ideologies are all ultimately based on the concept of returning to Palestine. So OF COURSE they would still want to go home.

The decades following WWII saw tremendous upheaval and turmoil for millions of people. They relocated, resettled in new regions, adjusted their political identities and (for good or ill), moved forward. The Palestinians were never given this opportunity. And they do deserve the opportunity to return home to Palestine. No one denies them this catharsis. The issue at stake is what "Palestine" truly means. Obviously it will mean something very different than what many had been lead to expect. Just as the Jews who wish to "return" to Hebron will soon find themselves sorely disappointed, Palestinians will likely "return" to a country whose borders might not have ever encompassed their long-remembered childhood home.

Such is the price of peace, and the opportunity to actually control the next chapters of the Palestinians' narrative.

No exiles ever give of the dream of return.

How so? I would tend to think that MOST of them DO give up on it. Do Australians still pine for a triumphant return to England? Do the Pakistani or Indian victims of Partition's ethnic cleansing riots dream of recrossing that border? Do many Israeli Jews from Arab nations fantasize about eventually moving back home to build a new life in Morocco or Iraq or Libya? I can't speak for everyone but I would tend to think they don't.

What about actual Palestinians... Such as those in Jordan? Do they dream of leaving to take part in the great Palestinian national experiment? Doubtful. How about Israeli Palestinians? Would they want to renounce their Israeli citizenships and become Palestinian via land swaps designed to even out ethnic disparities in some hypothetical future peace treaty? The polls would suggest not.

My point is that a refusal to give up on some idealistic dream is not really a fair point of negotiatiation. It can not be the job of any treaty to cater to unrealistic (and highly romanticized), expectations. People can and do give up their dreams of return. They do it because it is ultimately far more practical to invest in improving your actual reality (no matter how divergent it may be to the ideal), than to remain 100% invested in a dream that pays returns only in continued disenfranchisement and suffering.

[JDPriestly]

2. Thank you. Because I have known so many Holocaust survivors

(By sheer coincidence. I am not Jewish.) and lived in the countries in Europe in which antisemitism held such strong hold and know how deeply embedded it is there, I support Israel. Without Israel, Jewish people cannot feel safe. But I think this article takes a big step toward broadening the understanding that can lead to a realistic peace.

I still firmly believe, having lived for a while in the Alsace-Lorraine area of France, that peace can be achieved between bordering countries in spite of long-held and deep-seated conflicts over land, religion, culture and politics. People can learn to agree to disagree and to share. Peace is always preferable to war in the long run, always for children and families and prosperity.

It is essential that Palestinians establish some sort of self-governance that the Israelis can have confidence in. The Palestinians have to be able to control their homegrown terrorists. If they can do that, Israel will be able to negotiate in trust, in good faith and Palestinians will be the better for it.

But as long as Palestine is not united enough to police its own terrorists, no matter how just its cause or how many countries recognize it or how many people support it, Palestine will never be a nation that can be trusted, will never be capable of living in peace.

[Ken Burch]

9. Nobody actually IS blaming Israel for "every grievance in the Middle East".

Just for a significant part of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. There's a huge difference there.

[shira]

16. So you don't really agree with the OP? n/t

[Ken Burch]

38. I don't agree with the OP's title...and actually, as oberliner helpfully pointed out

the title of the OP doesn't fully agree with the OP's text.

I support the Arab democracy movements. That's the most important thing to do. Of course Israel isn't to blame for EVERY single problem in the region, and even the ARABS would agree with that.

Both sides have made a lot of mistakes...by my reckoning, fairly close to equal.

It's as useless to say "It's all the Arab dictators' fault" as it is to say "It's all the Israel's fault".

Why are you so fixated on putting it all on the side you oppose, RATHER than on trying to find some way to actually END this conflict?

[shira]

45. Do you agree with the conclusion of the OP? n/t

[oberliner]

19. Way to respond to the title and not the actual article

A little more going on in the article than the title.

[Ken Burch]

35. Well, the title is also important.

Most progressives support the Arab democracy movements. That's enough.

It can't be progressive to do what shira wants and obsess about Hamas to the exclusion of everything else.

Everyone knows it isn't actually possible to make Hamas disappear, so what I would argue is that we have to find some way

of getting them to take the path that the I.R.A. took in Northern Ireland.

Remember, back in the day, the I.R.A. was seen by Ulster Unionists as being just as vile as Hamas is seen by Israelis. Yet, they were brought to a different path by...wait for it...diplomacy, negotiation and compromise.

If the shiras of Ulster had had their, that wouldn't even have been tried and the pointless "crush the I.R.A." military approach that had no chance of success would just have gone on forever.

[oberliner]

77. True enough

But I do think it is often the case that folks on DU react more to the title of articles than to the articles themselves.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Interesting article.

I agree that until very recently there was much less media focus on most Middle Eastern states and their treatment of their own citizens than there should have been. Iraq received a lot of attention because of the agenda there of both President Bushes; Israel has always received a lot of criticism; Iran has received a lot of criticism for a long time - but most Middle Eastern states, that failed to reach someone's 'bogeynation status', were ignored.

Alibhai Brown is an interesting writer in general!