Frank Applauds Israeli Democracy

[oberliner]

Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) emphasized Israel’s success as a democracy in the Middle East at an event in Emerson Hall last night, and stressed the importance of a continued relationship between Israel and the United States.

Frank—a Democrat representing Massachusetts’ 4th congressional district since 1981 and an outspoken supporter of Israel—spoke at “The Future of The Middle East: Israel, Iran, and The War on Terror,” an event organized by Harvard Students for Israel and the Harvard College Democrats.

Frank said that Israel serves as an example of a flourishing democracy, maintaining “a superb record of standing by democratic principles,” despite continual outside threats.

Frank compared the rights of Israeli women to those in many Middle Eastern countries, arguing that women are granted a political voice in Israel because they played such significant roles in the army.

Frank then criticized the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the American military. He said that gays and lesbians serve openly in the Israeli army, and said that Israel is a safe haven for gay male Palestinians, who may fear death in their societies.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518439

[Jim Sagle]

1. Israel RRRRAWWWWXXXXXX and so does Barney Frank!

:toast:

[breakaleg]

2. Which of those superb democratic principles reflects the treatment of Arabs in Israel and the OT?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

4. Human rights does not seem to be the issue for Barney Frank.

To my knowledge, he has never and will never criticize any action Israel has ever taken in its desire to continue the colonialization of Palestinian land.

[oberliner]

5. He has spoken out in favor of the Geneva Accords

Here is part of his statement on those accords from 2003:

It is in this context that I join in welcoming the efforts of those on both the Israeli and Palestinian side who have recently demonstrated what an achievable Israeli-Palestinian peace can look like. Recently, in Geneva, a ceremony was held in which leading Israeli and Palestinian citizens signed onto their version of a comprehensive peace plan which provides both for a Palestinian state, and a State of Israel, with both having the viability necessary to exist as independent nations, and in a way that minimizes the likelihood of ongoing violence between them. This initiative, led by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, reflects a great deal of serious thought by people who have been deeply involved in trying to reach peace, and demonstrates that a true peace agreement is in fact achievable in ways that meet the needs of those in both Israel and the Palestinian areas who genuinely desire peace. In addition, a recent proposal outlined by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh is less detailed but points in a similar direction.

http://www.house.gov/frank/IsraeliPalestinianpeace2003.html

[The Magistrate]

7. So, Mr. Joad, You Do Not Like The Man, Eh?

Because there is really no other meaning that can be taken from the above bit of boiler-plate. It simply illustrates the old problem, Sir, that merely chanting one 'supports human rights' conveys no meaning at all, because everyone means something different by the phrase, and all anyone really agrees on is that 'human rights' is a good thing.

Rep. Frank doubtless places a high value on open political life, free press, and societal acceptance of homosexuals, among other things, and incl;udes them in his vision of what 'human rights' means. You do not seem to interpert the phrase as meaning much of anything beyond the idea that if one people is at war with another, the side you favor should not meet with actions by its opponents designed to hamper the ability of its fighting elements to strike their enemy. For no serious student of the matter is in much doubt that if violence by the various Arab Palestinian militant bodies categorically ceased, so would Israeli military operations against Arab Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. Has his vision of what human rights means ever mentioned the treatment of the Palestinians?

Rep. Frank doubtless places a high value on open political life, free press, and societal acceptance of homosexuals, among other things, and incl;udes them in his vision of what 'human rights' means.

Because if his idea is merely that narrow sort of thing which deliberately ignores the human rights of the Palestinian people, then someone needs to point out to him and anyone who agrees with that sort of narrow view that human rights isn't a privilege - it's a right for all, not just Israelis, and to ignore Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinian people isn't doing anyone any favours. Someone quite rightly pointing out that this Frank guy seems to have ignored the human rights of the Palestinian people does not at all mean that they only care about the human rights of the Palestinians. What it means is that they're probably wondering why it seems quite acceptable to some for people to only care about human rights when it comes to pointing out Israel's admirable human rights record on some issues while ignoring its less than stellar record when it comes to the occupation...

You do not seem to interpert the phrase as meaning much of anything beyond the idea that if one people is at war with another, the side you favor should not meet with actions by its opponents designed to hamper the ability of its fighting elements to strike their enemy.

I know that yr very aware of human rights violations that have been committed on the Palestinian population that can't be excused with the security argument. Will you be needing a memory refresher on some of them?

For no serious student of the matter is in much doubt that if violence by the various Arab Palestinian militant bodies categorically ceased, so would Israeli military operations against Arab Palestine.

Assuming that the serious students yr referring to are real students and not the online type who as I was told in one case had been studying the I/P conflict since they were five years old and depended heavily on online sources that if included in an essay would gain them a swift failing grade, I have to point out that students, at the tertiary level at least, are not fed such simplistic nonsense and are generally aware that it's a bit more complex than if one side gives up then the other will too....

btw, just curious, but are there any Palestinians that aren't Arab?

[The Magistrate]

15. You May View It As You Wish, Ma'am

Which is, indeed, what everyone does when these particular phrases are waved about. Each person prioritizes for themselves, and what one finds central another finds peripheral. Since neither human energy nor time is infinite, and humans are individual and idiosyncratic, this is unavoidable. If you were to press the argument from universality you are attempting here against Rep. Frank, and apply it to yourself, you would be having to spend a good deal of time justifying your choice to focus so closely on treatment of Arab Palestinians rather than on, say, the systematic denial of rights to women in many areas of the Moslem world, the massacres in Darfur, in the Congo, the Russian occupation in Chechnya, counter-insurgency in the Philipines, prison labor in China, the plight of North Korea's people, the long war against the Maya in Guatemala and continued dispossession of and discrimination against indigenous peoples in many places in South America, and indeed, a whole host of other situations in which the human rights of many millions, even billions of persons, are being trampled on. Doubtless you would come up with reasons for your own particular focus, but why anyone should regard them as superior to those that might be offered by Rep. Frank, or anyone else whose focus differs from yours, would be a mystery.

Nor do you engage the central point of my view, which is that in a number of instances the invocation of 'human rights' is obviously a mere rhetorical cudgel in the hand of a propagandist, who seeks only to rouse an emotional reaction he or she hopes will waft people over to one side of a quarrel without too much thought or critical examinaton of the circumstances of the conflict. Such usage does not stem from any genuine commitment to the ideals of human rights and liberties, but rather from a commitment to the victory of one side or the other in a battle fought on many fronts and with many tools, and in which this particular tool is conceived as being most apt for a particular target. It is no more the reflection of a moral commitment than is a preference for infiltration over bombardment as a means to crack an enemy's position.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. As You Most Certainly Do....

Though when it comes to human rights, I'm not a supporter of Israel, nor a supporter of the Palestinians, and find those who prioritise away the human rights of whichever group of people they're not doing the cheerleader routine for to be rather one-dimensional in their views...

If I were to press the argument for universality, you may have a point, but seeing I wasn't arguing for universality, all you've done is exert more than a few keystrokes bringing in a few red herrings. When it comes to Israel and human rights, human rights violations against the population that Israel is occupying is not an argument for universality, whereas bringing up human rights violations committed elsewhere in the world that Israel isn't involved with would be...

I must have missed the bit of my post where I said that people should regard my focus (and it obviously upsets some folk that I do focus on human rights violations by both Israel and the Palestinians)as superior to that of some US politician. Oh...wait...I didn't miss it, coz I never said it or even thought it. I've been under the assumption all these years that DU was a place where we could come and voice our opinions, and if we disagree with a politician we could say so without being accused of thinking we're superior to whichever polly we're talking about. Clearly all these years I was very mistaken...

I find it interesting that you say the central point of yr view is that there are instances where the invocation of 'human rights' is a mere rhetorical cudgel while you totally ignore that the politician in question was using that rhetorical cudgel in the OP. But then again, he was saying nicey-nice things about Israel, and to some they only complain about the cudgel when it's being swung in the other direction...

[The Magistrate]

23. Let Us Review, Ms. Crumble

This began with citation of several comments by Rep. Frank, one of the leading liberals in the House, and a very popular and widely respected leader of the Democratic Party, on the alliance between the U.S. and Israel, and reasons he thought our two countries compatible.

He praised Israel for maintaining itself as a democracy under the strain of prolonged war, and that is indeed an achievement. The democratic form of government does not always hold up under the strain of war, which tends to introduce totalitarian distortions into any polity. However, despite the strain of war, the political culture of Israel remains robust, dissent is wide, and it takes real work to get oneself police attention as a seditionist.

He praised the condition of women, politically and socially, in Israel, in contrast to their condition in surrounding countries, and in some areas, even in regards to other Western states. There is no doubt whatever the condition of women in Israel is superior to that of women in surrounding countries, and that despite ultra-orthodox influence in law, and even pockets where that obscurantist pattern is an enforced norm within ultra-orthodox communities, as well as areas where community pressure hampers the rights and liberties of Arab women.

He praised the acceptance of homosexuals in Israeli society, particularly in the Israeli military, contrasting this favoreably with the United States. As Rep. Frank is the first openly homosexual person to serve in the Congress, this is doubtless an item very close to his own heart, and may well constitute one of his leading personal standards, and again, there is no doubt that his description of the state of affairs in Israel is an accurate one.

These things are all certainly sufficient ground for anyone to speak of Israel favoreably in the field of human rights, as these are generally construed among left and progressive people. Free and open political processes are the essence of human liberty; without them the thing cannot exist at all: the rights and liberties of women is a matter affecting quite literally half the population of the earth, and the key to transforming for the better a great many dysfunctional and faltering societies: the rights and liberties of homosexuals is a leading cause on the left in the U.S. today, and certainly one close to this particular person.

There were some replies made to this, on the line that he should not have praised Israel for these things, but rather should have denounced it for its conduct towards Arab Palestinians. These comments were rather general, and certainly glossed over the fact that the people of Israel and Arab Palestine exist in a state of war, and spend a fair amount of energy and time trying to kill one another. This rather complicates the consideration of 'human rights' in the situation, particularly since the great bulk of military actions undertaken in the name of Arab Palestine are crimes of war, and intended to provoke disproportionate and possibly criminal responses from the state of Israel. The actions of Israel in the course of exercising legal occupation of the Jordan valley do not occur in a vacuum, and people really ought not to pretend that they do.

Persons who did reply in this vein can hardly be seen as doing other than insisting all attention be focused on a concern that is of greatest interest to them, and that allegiance to 'human rights' cannot exist in persons who do not share their particular focus on a single issue. It is roughly analagous to persons so consumed by hatred of abortion that they will view any person who does not share it as a murderer, or someone so consumed by attatchment to ownership of a fire-arm that they view any person who wishes the slightest regulation of fire-arms as a deadly enemy of freedom, regardless, in either case, of the totality of the persons they are so disparaging. People who take a broader view will remain unimpressed, both by the charges, and by the claim to be exemplars of the sole right way to regard complicated matters.

The great problem with one-sided focus on conduct in an on-going conflict, such as some on the left do in the matter of Israel v. Palestine, is that it operates to discredit the entire concept of laws of war with the general run of people, by convincing them that charges these are being violated by one side are simply political, rather than the product of a neutral consideration of whether conduct meets legal standards. There is a further problem, when broad items such as women's rights, that are of great interest and moment domestically, are dismissed as inconsequential elsewhere by leftists, as it seems to suit their political convenience in some other matter. A great many people take this as indicating leftists are not sincere in support for women's rights, and other things that touch directly on their own lives, and they take away from it the message that leftist are simply hypocrites, looking for things to squawk about, rather than sincerely seeking to bring about better conditions for all. Both these things contribute directly to the difficulties leftists and progressive find in gaining mass electoral footing in the United States.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. No-one said anything of the sort...

There were some replies made to this, on the line that he should not have praised Israel for these things, but rather should have denounced it for its conduct towards Arab Palestinians. These comments were rather general...

'Rather general' clearly means no-one in this thread made any reply that stated or hinted that he shouldn't praise Israel. Every reply I've seen asked why he wasn't mentioning the less than savoury side of Israel's human rights record when it comes to the Palestinian people.

Yr attempt to excuse this politician for his hypocrisy (and let's face it, if it was someone pointing out the social work Hamas does, they'd be a hypocrite not to mention that suicide bombings and attacks on Israeli civilians tainted their record in that regard) is that Israelis and Palestinians exist in a state of war, etc. If that's yr argument, then why don't you apply it to human rights violations committed against Israeli civilians by Palestinian militant groups? The reality is that there is nothing complicating the matter when it comes to human rights violations against either Israeli or Palestinian civilians...

Persons who did reply in this vein can hardly be seen as doing other than insisting all attention be focused on a concern that is of greatest interest to them, and that allegiance to 'human rights' cannot exist in persons who do not share their particular focus on a single issue.

I'm sure it would be seen like that by 'supporters' of Israel who are incapable of seeing the conflict as anything other than a one-dimensional conflict where Israel bears very little or no blame, while the Palestinians should take all or most of the blame. But seeing no-one replied in the vein you claimed they did, it's a moot point. What is clear to me that there is a problem when some people only think human rights are worth discussing when those human rights are painting their 'side' in a good light, but when human rights gets brought up in regard to violations against the Palestinian people, then suddenly human rights is a word that's got dit-dits around it and it suddenly becomes such a vague and pointless term....

[Donald Ian Rankin]

18. I'm afraid I disagree.

"For no serious student of the matter is in much doubt that if violence by the various Arab Palestinian militant bodies categorically ceased, so would Israeli military operations against Arab Palestine."

That makes the implicit, and in my view mistaken, judgement that the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands beyond the green line is not a military action.

Moreover, even if all the Palestinian militant and/or political groups gave up and went back to their refugee camps, so many Palestinians have lost homes and loved ones to Israel that for at least a generation there would continue to be individuals who carried out terrorist attacks on Israel, and I think it more probable than not that Israel would use those as excuses to carry out military "reprisals" against the Palestinians as a whole. The only way to stop Palestinians committing violent acts against Israel is to address their (legitimate, in my view) grievances fully.

The flip side of your claim - that if Israel were to withdraw to its own borders and agree to just settlements on Jerusalem and the right of return, Palestinian violence against it would cease - has, I think, much more to be said for it.

Israel is monolithic, the Palestinians are fragmented. As such, the decision to make peace can only be made by Israel.

[pelsar]

19. fantasy or just a belief?

The flip side of your claim - that if Israel were to withdraw to its own borders and agree to just settlements on Jerusalem and the right of return, Palestinian violence against it would cease - has, I think, much more to be said for it.

pre 67 attacks on israel mean anything to you?....what has changed since then?

and here you make it clear that your previous statement holds no water
Israel is monolithic, the Palestinians are fragmented. As such, the decision to make peace can only be made by Israel.

meaning that the palestinians have no leadership to actually make and stick to any decisions made..hence they cant even be held accountable for NOT keeping to any decisions. (this hints at the aspect that even if israel pulled back and that some of the fragments want all of israel, the attacks will continue......and your reaction is then?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Some thoughts.

:-It has been repeatedly demonstrated that Israel is not able to protect itself from Palestinian violence through military means.

:-It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the Palestinians are not capable of forcing Israel to do anything it doesn't choose to do through violence.

:-The Palestinian violence is not going to stop while the Palestinian grievances remain unaddressed.

:-What has changed since 67 is that the Palestinian expectations have fallen - at the time, they thought they had a chance of destroying Israel altogether; now most (altohugh not all of them) have realised that the best they can possibly hope for is Israel withdrawing to the green line.

:-There is no course of action Israel can take that will not result in intermittent terrorist attacks on it continuing for a generation, I think. However, some courses of action will result in the attempts being far less frequent and less well-supported than others.

:-The Palestinians now have no leadership. Israel has finally got what it's always wanted - they no longer have a partner for negotiations. They did, until Arafat died; but even then they didn't negotiate with them.

:-As such, there is no way of holding "the Palestinians" accountable. You can - and Israel will - inflict massive suffering on innocent Palestinian civilians, and murder or arrest individual leaders deemed responsible for violence, but there is no body "the Palestinians" to hold responsible.

:-As such, the only possible route to anything resembling peace would be if Israel takes unilateral actions in that direction, and then responds to sporadic but decreasingly-frequent terrorist attacks with extreme restraint for a generation. Israel would have to act unilaterally, although preferably in consultation with as many influential Palestinians as possible, to address the Palestinian grievances, and then wait and see what happened.

:-What would happen, I think, would be that some Palestinians would accept the new status quo, and not want to risk further conflict, while others would continue to resort to violence. The relative sizes of these two groups would depend on how far Israel was willing to go.

:-I think, although I don't know for certain (no-one does) that if it went far enough (withdraw to the green line, joint sovereignty over Jerusalem, some compromise on the right of return) then the former group would sufficiently outnumber the latter to effectively stifle it, both in terms of official suppression and deprival of popular support. This would be especially possible if Israel and/or the international community helped establish a functioning Palestinian state. That wouldn't totally stop attacks on Israel, but it would massively reduce them.

:-I don't think that's going to happen. What I think it going to happen is that Israel is going to continue to kill large numbers of Palestinian civilians, destroy the lives of most of the remainder, and occupy their land, and the Palestinians are going to continue to kill significantly smaller, but still large, numbers of Israeli civilians, for the forseeable future.

[Shaktimaan]

22. I think your thoughts contain many commonly held

and rational (I might add) ideas about the conflict that don't seem to have held up. It's not possible to see into the future, but we can extrapolate based on what actions people have taken in the past.

• Israel CAN protect itself through military means. Not 100% of course. But on this issue the right ended up being, well.. right, unfortunately. They said that leaving Lebanon would allow Hezbollah to militarize the area and they did just that. They said that leaving Gaza would bring more attacks against Israel, and they were right. Meanwhile, actions like the security fence construction have nearly ceased suicide bombings. So far, it is trying for appeasement with factions that are not very interested in peace that has proven to escalate violence, NOT military responses which reduce terrorism. Remember, Hamas claimed that they drove Israel out of Gaza and what we saw as Israel's unilateral concession to peace was seen there as weakness and a Palestinian military victory.

Whether or not Palestinian expectations have really fallen is debatable. It is not a few small groups who still deny Israel's right to exist anywhere. It is many large, well funded groups who have been elected as Palestine's interim government.

The Palestinians have leadership. It just sucks. Why would Israel have wanted this anyway? Almost everyone in Israel supports(ed) land-for-peace. The idea that it may not work has come as a brutal shock and depressing realization.

They absolutely negotiated with Arafat. Camp David, Taba, Oslo, Wye, etc.

You can hold the Palestinians accountable. They live in a democracy and thus are responsible for their own destiny. But Israel's actions are not about "punishing" the Palestinians anyway. They are about security. Israel hasn't taken any acts to hurt Palestinians that wasn't directly related to security. And they have done beneficial things that did not compromise their security in many instances.

Unilateral actions towards peace while consulting with as many high profile Palestinian politicians as possible to work out logistics is a perfect description of the Gaza pullout. A pullout that resulted in increased terrorism.

If we think of a sliding scale, your theory basically postulates that if Israel makes enough concessions then more and more Palestinians would be won over, eventually marginalizing terrorism. Yet if that were true then we would expect actions like the Gaza pullout or the Oslo accords, things that gave the Palestinians greatly increased self-determination, freedom of movement, autonomy, land, etc., to be accompanied by some kind of decrease in terrorist attacks. Or at least we would not expect a huge increase as is what ended up happening. As soon as Oslo took effect, (before the settlements were expanded) and Israel pulled out of areas of the west bank, terrorism shot up. The areas that are now terrorism bases are the areas Israel left.

In Lebanon, Israel met ALL of the requirements. Hezbollah just invented a new one, Shebaa Farms. (Does anyone think they give a rats ass about Shebaa Farms? Enough to provoke all this carnage? But not enough to go through the UN or any of the other legal mechanisms I guess.) So if your theory was accurate, we would see a huge drop off in terrorism coming from the North, right? Israel no longer has any beef with Lebanon, they met all their reasonable demands and the border was ratified by the UN. But we all know what we got instead, right? An entrenched, more well equipped enemy with time and freedom of movement on their side.

Israel and the intl. community DID begin to help the PA construct a functioning state. They used the benefits to attack Israel instead of helping themselves.

So, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no relationship between Israeli peace concessions and anti-Israeli terrorism. (Or at worst, there is really an inverse relationship.) Here's the million dollar question...

What makes you think otherwise? (besides assuming that it is a common sense reaction to cease terrorism as goals are met?)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. It's not a linear sliding scale.

"If we think of a sliding scale, your theory basically postulates that if Israel makes enough concessions then more and more Palestinians would be won over, eventually marginalizing terrorism."

I don't think it's a sliding scale.

What I think is that at present, the Palestinians think "the Israelis are oppressing us because they are our enemies". Slight concessions, made piecemeal, send the message "The Israelis are being forced to make concessions, but are still our enemies. We need to force them to make more concessions."

What is needed (or rather, what would be needed - there's little chance of it happening) is a single, large, unforced round of most if not all of the justifiable Palestinian grievances at once, sending the message "We acknowledge we were wrong, we have changed, we are not your enemies any more", and also "This is what we are willing to concede; we are not willing to concede any more".

Not all Palestinians would accept that by any means, but I think enough would. I'm *not* certain of this, by any means, but I think that

1)there's a good chance it would lead to peace.
2)there's no chance that anything else will lead to peace.
3)even if it doesn't lead to peace, addressing the Palestinian grievances is in itself a desirable end.

I do not think it is simply the case that the more Israel concedes, the less Palestinian anger there will be, and vice versa.

[Shaktimaan]

31. How would you explain Lebanon then?

Every requirement was met and it had the exact opposite effect as you are predicting.

I understand your point of view, it sounds rational, sure. But is there any evidence at all to suggest that things would unfold that way?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. By reference to the Palestinians.

The reason withdrawal from Lebanon didn't end Arab anger at Israel was that the occupation of Palestine continued.

For there to be much chance of success, Israel would have to address all, or nearly all, remaining grievances of its opponents at once.

There is no solid evidence; what I'm proposing has not been tried. The only thing I can point to is the lull in violence around the Camp David negotiations, when the Palestinians thought they might actually get most of what they wanted. But a) there was strong, centralised Palestinian leadership then, and b) I think there may be even more ill-will now than then, so it's not exactly the same situation. I'm *not* claiming certainty that what I propose would work - I think the odds are better than 50%, but not by much. I *am* claiming that nothing else will, and that there's a decent chance it would.

[Shaktimaan]

34. I'm not sure what you mean.

What lull in violence around Camp David? Like, around what time frame?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. Hmm.

If I had to pick dates, I'd say from 17th of May 1999 to 28th of September 2000.
The beginning date is very nebulous, the end date precisely that one.

"Lull" is a relative term, but my belief (not terribly well-researched, I admit) is that compared there was less violence around then than either before or afterwards.

[pelsar]

24. how about some numbers?

As such, the only possible route to anything resembling peace would be if Israel takes unilateral actions in that direction, and then responds to sporadic but decreasingly-frequent terrorist attacks with extreme restraint for a generation

how many dead israelis before a response?...and what kind of response would you (and the palestinians) be deemed approporiate...or are you saying that in effect the israeli govt should stop protecting its citizens?....those who kill israelis shall not fear any kind of justice?....this is the cornerstone of your "peace"?

btw if the palestinians arent accountable for their actions as a society....and many groups are (islamic jihad) want israel gone..and they are the ones shooting the kassams....seems to me its reasonable to assume that pulling out (as in lebanon and gaza) will do nothing but put the kassams in range of tel aviv. Your acceptable action for israel then is........????


one more thing:...a good idea of how peace works with israel would be to look at the surrounding states, those that have peaceful borders and those that dont......here "the proof is in the pudding" as to what works and what doesnt. Guess work is not required.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. What response is reasonable depends on the cause, not the effect.

"how many dead israelis before a response?...and what kind of response would you (and the palestinians) be deemed approporiate..."

Number of dead Israelis isn't the relevant measure of what a proportionate response is. A single Palestinian acting alone who managed to kill vast numbers of Israelis would not justify any kind of response. Even a relatively small number of killings carried out intentionally and officially by a democratically-elected government would.

"...or are you saying that in effect the israeli govt should stop protecting its citizens?"

I am saying that the best way for the Israeli government to protect its citizens is through addressing the Palestinian grievances, and that trying to do so through punitive measures or military force against civilian populations, quite apart from the moral issues, is counterproductive - it creates more danger than it resolves.


"Your acceptable action for israel then is..."

What is and isn't acceptable for Israel to do I'd want an entire thread to discuss. I think the *wisest* action for Israel to take in that situation would be to negotiate with the more moderate Palestinian groups and try, as fast as possible, to set up a functioning Palestinian state that would keep the extremists in check and starve them of popular support. I think that doing so would probably involve non-trivial numbers of Israelis being killed in the interim, but fewer than would be killed as a result of any other approach.

[pelsar]

26. your honesty is appreciative...

but its not going to happen that way. I have no intention of sacrficing my kids on the alter of the palestinians for such a gamble. Nor would any israeli govt survive given such a policy of letting the palestinians attack at will and there be no response. (nor would any democratic govt for that matter)

and of course you do realize that not only is your plan not guaranteed in fact there is a good chance for failure. Killing israelis is considered, in many circles within the palestinian society, as a highly honorable thing (sucide bombers are celebrated). It could easily backfire, as those who do succeed in killing and live to tell about it and then go and influence others will only increase the death count.

any good plan requires a back up.....so lets say israel pulls back, as per your suggestion and the killing continues (hamas stays in govt and simply goes with their policy line of "no israel/jew on arab land)....when israel finally gets tired of having it citizens killed, the resulting reaction would require retaking palestinian cities with massive amounts of palestinians killed......

and gaza?....do you have an explanation for that?.....israel pulling out, coordinating with the local leadership, and gettting kassams almost everyday afterwards

Lebanon?....why is hizballa trying to kill israelis?......

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. See my post #27.

Essentially, I think that the relation between Israeli concessions and Palestinian anger is non-linear - my guess is that up to a certain threshold, concessions will do very little good, and that the circumstances they are made in will also make an issue.

FWIW, I think you're probably right that Israeli public opinion will not support making sufficient concessions in the forseeable future. My claim is not that what I am proposing *will* bring peace, just that it is the only approach that *would*. I fully expect to "Violence Flairs in Middle East" to be a headline as familiar to my great-nephews as it is to me.

Note, though, the example of the government here in Britain, which has, by negotiation and concessions, managed to end the IRA's terrorist campaign against Britain. Not an identical situation, for various reasons (it was always on a much smaller scale, on both sides) but perhaps an interesting parallel.

[pelsar]

29. what i think the answer is....

when one looks at egypt, syria jordan.....they all have one thing in common with israel: peaceful borders with only sporadic border attacks (always coming from the arab side to israel) that are understood to be the exception. The reason? they all guard their borders and actually try to keep them peaceful.

Lebanon does not have that, nor does gaza. In both those cases the local govt is weak, and indecisive......(the IRA i believe had a strong single leadership).

and that is the answer. Without a strong PA govt that is willing to actually guard their borders, there is little chance of any of the various jihadnikim being controlled. Until the PA can actually guard their borders in gaza and stop the kassams any plan is doomed


The major fallacy of your plan is when kassams land on the intl airport or a major city. or a chemical plant... Do you really think israel could actually (or any country for that matter) just let it happen without reacting?

a kassam on a chemical plant, hi rise apt building, fuel tanks.....we're talking 100s or 1,000s of dead israelis...and that would be considered "quality" attack by the jihadnikim. Your plan of bringing the kassams within range would make that a very real possibility.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I'm inclined to agree, but I see no chance of that happening.

I think that if there *were* a strong Palestinian leadership the Israelis could negotiate with then there would be a chance for peace that way, as there was under Arafat.

But unfortunately, I see no prospect of such leadership arising; in no small part because Israeli policy appears to be calculated to prevent it happening, presumably because they view a strong unified Palestine as more of a threat than a weak fragmented one.

As such, the first move is going to have to come from Israel. You say that until the Palestinians guard their borders there is no chance of peace; I'm inclined to agree but I think that until Israel withdraws to its own borders there is no chance of anyone not committed to violence aquiring enough strength among the Palestinians to do so.

I fully acknowledge that my proposal would mean that there would be a period of time, between the Israeli withdrawal and the succesful establishment of a strong Palestinian government (if that happened, which would not be a certainty, although it could be made likely by a) proper preparation, and b) international support) during which each attempted attack on Israel would have a greater chance of succes than it would otherwise. But I think that that would be significantly outweighed by the reduction in the number of attempted attacks, especially in the long term.

The vicious circle has to be broken by Israel, because one Israeli is in a position to break it, whereas no one Palestinian will be until it's been broken.



"The major fallacy of your plan is when kassams land on the intl airport or a major city. or a chemical plant... Do you really think israel could actually (or any country for that matter) just let it happen without reacting?"

I think some other countries could probably refrain from military reprisals if they would clearly be counterproductive. I don't think Israel could.

[The Magistrate]

30. England's Dealings With The I.R.A., Sir

Involved a good deal of assassination, as well as considerable infiltration of the organization, which was sometimes manipulated to secure the deaths of active member's of it by its own enfdorcement teams, and also involved the whole-hearted co-operation of the Irish Republic in denying safe havens to I.R.A. members. There is less overlap than commonly supposed. Obviously, if Arab governments, including the Palestine Authority, co-operated with Israel, as the Irish Republic did with England, and if the odds a Shin-Bet operative was in the room when an attack on Israel was planned began to approach one in three, then the situation might be brought under control in the same manner the I.R.A. was.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. None of that stopped the troubles, though.

The British intelligence and police forces managed to catch, and probably in many case to have killed, a great many IRA agents. But they didn't manage to stop the IRA setting of bombs that killed people.

That was only achieved more recently, through negotiation.

[The Magistrate]

42. To Under-Rate The Efficacy Of Volence, Sir

Is as much a mistake as to over-rate it. The recent willingness of the I.R.A.'s armed wing to accept negotiation and dis-arm owed a great deal to the increased difficulties it faced in conducting operations, stemming from the causes referenced above. A comparison between the original stated aims of the organization, and what it actually settled for, makes this quite clear.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

46. I'm not wholly convinced.

The stated aims of the IRA are one thing, but it's initial expectations are quite another.

I suspect (although I freely admit it's not a terribly well-informed suspicion) that the primary reason the IRA decided to negotiate was that they realised they could achieve more through negotiation than through violence, even violence successfully carried out.

I suspect the Irish Republican movement would have achieved more earlier if it had given up on violence earlier. Conversely, if the British government had adopted a less represive approach to the Northern Irish Catholic population earlier, there would have been far fewer successful IRA bombings.

Violence is a very good way of attracting attention to a cause, but in general not an efficient way of promoting it.

Human beings are not like animals, they're much less logical. If you beat a dog, it will fear you and obey you, to avoid being beaten again; if you beat a human then in general they, and their friends and descendants, will hate you and oppose you even if it's not in their best interests to do so.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians appear to have realised this.

[Shaktimaan]

48. doesn't this contradict your theory?

Human beings are not like animals, they're much less logical. If you beat a dog, it will fear you and obey you, to avoid being beaten again; if you beat a human then in general they, and their friends and descendants, will hate you and oppose you even if it's not in their best interests to do so.


Your concept relies on both factions approaching this conflict as logical entities, one might say extremely logical entities. Spock-like in fact. You are looking at the tangible problems and proposing solutions for them that everyone could live with, in the belief that when the Palestinians see their most important problems solved, they will interpret it as a reason to trust Israel instead of attacking her. This groundswell of public pacifism will bleed into the militant groups who will lose public support for their mission and will eventually find themselves unable to continue terrorism in any meaningful way.

Right? (basically.)

But since when has anyone in this conflict behaved in a truly logical fashion?

Your example of the human being beaten and retaining hate far afterwards is apt. Just because Palestine may get a capital in Jerusalem someday it does not mean that the hate or the thirst for revenge will dissipate. And the Palestinians might be the world leaders in formulating policy that seems specifically designed to hurt their interests as much as possible. It is not that they WANT to keep shooting themselves in the foot, or that they don't anticipate the reactions to their policies... it is a conscious choice they make again and again.

Now I do not have a plan for a workable peace settlement. But I can assure you that any plan that relies on large numbers of Palestinians deciding to put emotion aside and act primarily according to logic would probably not get great odds in Vegas.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. No, although it militates against it.

If either the Israelis or the Palestinians were to act logically to promote their own self-interest, there would be all sorts of options.

My belief is that a single, large, unilateral concession of most of the Palestinian grievances *might* be enough to overcome enough of the ill-will the Palestinians bear the Israelis that their self-interest would override it.

It's not a certainy, though.

[pelsar]

58. and if it fails.

i think you have to consider what would happen if your idea fails........

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Then people die.

However, I think that the probability of success multiplied by the number of people who would get killed if it succeede plus the probability of failure multiplied by the number of people who would get killed if it failed is probably quite a lot lower than the number of people who would get killed if "business as usual" goes on in the Middle East.

[Shaktimaan]

61. The thing is

I am still not sure how you are calculating your probablilities. Are they based on anything?

[pelsar]

62. a failed plan would create a different environment

if your plan fails, the total environment will have been changed as will the dynamic. The PA and groups having the freedom of a state or at least freedom to move, plan, import etc will obviously arm themselves as per Hizballa, they now being the "role model".

For israel to stop the kassams it would mean re invading the westbank....and that would look a lot different than it does today:

no longer would israel be able to send in two jeeps to secure an area...instead it would be 2 tanks, 4 APCs loaded to the gills with live weapons (no gas grenades) and no doubt they would be shot at with anti tank weapons...the return fire would consist of 120mm shells etc taking down buildings with it......the restricted fighting in lebanon would be a thing of the past.....(think of Jenin.....as a poor example-the IDF went in on "tippy toes")

Your "failed plan" would cost hundreds of lives as israel went looking for the shooters and their manufacturers and the personal.
_____

i'm afraid you just made up some "numbers killed" without really understanding what kassams and uncontrolled armed groups in the westbank really means: a mortar takes about 5 seconds to set up and shoot.....as long as your going to terrorize a city (as hizballa did). I would think that your failed plan would result in quite a few of them, to say the least.

[The Magistrate]

21. At Present, Mr. Rankin

Israeli military occupation of the Jordan valley beyond the Green Line is the legal exertion of governance in an area no other state is in a position to exercise same over. That there are instances in which Israel abuses this authority does not alter this. The thing is not inherently a killing business, and most instances of killing it occassions can properly be laid to genuine security concerns, including under that genuine misapprehensions and misjudgements arising from same, a few of which certainly do rise to the level of criminal negligence, and even a few instances of out-right murder by soldiers.

The activities of the Arab Palestinian militant bodies, ranging from launching of artillery rockets against Israeli towns to the infiltration into Israel of persons delegated to immolate themselves amid a crowd of non-combatants, are inherently a killing business, and move the Israeli state, quite properly, to extraordinary exertions to prevent their succeeding in their lethal object. Until there is surety these will cease and have ceased, the Israeli state is not going to act in any other manner: its people would not tolerate it doing anything else, and it is, after all, a democratic state, in which people turn out of office governments that do not do the people's will. The only way to alter this political dynamic in Israel is for the violence against it to cease, and no real progress can be made in the situation until that occurs.

It is in fact my view that the best course for Israel to adopt at this time, and for that matter, for several years previous, would be to evactuate, by military force when necessary, as it would be in some instances, all settlements beyond the bedroom community blocks around Jerusalem, retire its soldiers more or less to the Green Line, and pay money compensation for lost properties at current market rates to the heirs of, and survivors among, those who fled or were pushed off their dwellings and lands in '48.

You will doubtless see nearby some arguement from an Israeli point of view against this course, which will maintain that it would not guarantee a cessation of violence against Israel, and might even lead to increased violence against it. Those arguments are not wholly without weight, as your own comments above regarding individual embitterment may acknowledge. The onus would be on whatever governing authority over Arab Palestine came into existence subsequent to Israeli withdrawl to prevent private individuals, whether solitary or grouped into organized bodies, from engaging in violence against Israel. If that authority failed in this duty, then of course Israel would react as any state would be expected to, and has the right to do, to protect its citizens from murderous assault.

Were the various militant bodies among the Arab Palestinian people to stand down, today, and a period of time wholly without violence, sufficient to establish that the foreswearing of violence was indeed real and permanent, pass by, it is difficult to imagine that the people of Israel would continue to support even military occupation of the Jordan valley, which they conceive of as a measure for their own defence. It would be clearly an unnecessary bother, expending monies the state could better use elsewhere, drawing reservists away from their lives, and expending the energies of young men to no good purpose. The political climate in Israel would be immeasureably improved, from the point of view making genuine concessions that would go a long way towards redressing the legitimate and long-standing grievances of the people of Arab Palestine.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. I'm afraid I think you're probably overoptimistic.

"it is difficult to imagine that the people of Israel would continue to support even military occupation of the Jordan valley, which they conceive of as a measure for their own defence."

I'm afraid I think you're too confident of this. I think that in the absence of violence, Israel would continue to hold on to large amounts of territory in the West Bank (am I right in thinking that that's the same as the "Jordan Valley" in this context, or have I missed something?).


You say "this dynamic isn't going to change until the violence ceases". I say "the violence isn't going to cease until the political dynamic changes".

Sadly, I think we're probably both right, but I think there's more chance of you being wrong than I am, although still not much.

A sufficiently visionary and charismatic Israeli leader *might* be able to convince the Israeli electorate to make the concessions necessary for peace tomorrow without having peace today; the odds of a leader persuading all the Palestinian factions to make peace simultaneously before an Israeli withdrawal are even smaller.

But I am not holding my breath for either to happen.

[Shaktimaan]

38. After Gaza?

A sufficiently visionary and charismatic Israeli leader *might* be able to convince the Israeli electorate to make the concessions necessary for peace tomorrow without having peace today; the odds of a leader persuading all the Palestinian factions to make peace simultaneously before an Israeli withdrawal are even smaller.

There's no way that the Israeli on the street is going to want to take the very real risk of making such vast concessions after witnessing what occurred in Gaza and Lebanon. Remember, most of Israel was really in favor of leaving Lebanon, of leaving Gaza, of washing their hands of the problems that came with holding on to those areas.

But if it is going to be more trouble to leave than to stay, if it will bring MORE violence, then why the hell would they go for it? After leaving Gaza it was up to the Palestinians to make a step towards peace as well. Both for themselves as well as for anyone else. But the violence occurring there in the absence of Israel's presence is directed as much at themselves as Israel.

Forget it. At some point Israel's enemies have to do something to show that they desire peace as well. It would be great if the Palestinians could even SAY that they desire peace with Israel. But they elected Hamas whose stance is unwaveringly set on Israel's destruction. Who would make concessions to an enemy that swears against peace? It would be seen as weakness, there is no doubt. It was seen as weakness in Lebanon, in Gaza and it would be elsewhere.

Palestine has to get its act together if they have any hope of peace, a nation or a reasonable life together. There is very little that Israel could do until this happens.

The reason withdrawal from Lebanon didn't end Arab anger at Israel was that the occupation of Palestine continued.

I don't think so. If the Lebanese cared at all about the Palestinians then they would not be their worst oppressors. Palestinians in Lebanon have less rights than anywhere else on the planet, bar none. Yet Hezbollah has done NOTHING to help them within their own country. Likewise, there is no relationship between Palestinian's treatment by Israel and Hezbollah's actions towards Israel. If the Arabs cared about Palestinian well-being then the Arab League would not enforce legislation that keeps them in squalid camps. The Palestinians would not have been expelled from Iraq and Kuwait. America would not be the biggest contributor to UNRWA. And the Palestinian refugees recently driven from Iraq, trapped on the border of Syria, living in a squalid tent city? Someone would take them in to their country. Oh, and they also would not have killed so many of them again and again and again, maybe.

Please, the only people who treat the Palestinians worse than the Israelis is the rest of the Arab community. Jordan killed more Palestinians in 10 days during Black September than Israel did in the past 7 years. The Arabs don't give a shit about them unless it is to use them as a tool against Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. I didn't say the Lebanese cared about the Palestinians.

I said the Lebanese were angry at the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

Those are not the same thing.

[pelsar]

41. actually hizballa (party of god)

isnt really angry with israel about anything in terms of the palestinians....they just believe israel/jews shouldnt be on arab land......hence the've been attacking, killing, terrorizing trying to kidnap israelis for the last 6 years.

They're attacks have nothing to do with the palestinians.....or at least so they say.

___

btw your plan doesnt leave us much "wriggle room"....give the fact, and you do agree that it might fail...seems you would be willing to risk a major urban war on several fronts (if one is worried about "civilian casulties, one does not want to have such a thing) for something that has perhaps a 50:50 chance of working. Those odds are pretty poor for such a risk. (i would give it actually zero chance given the fact that us citizens really wouldnt appreciate being bombed without our govt defending us, nor would our govt reps/ IDF personal disagree with us)

i dont think your find a single incident in history where a govt didnt respond to constant attacks, which is what your proposing.

"victims for peace", the expression peres used after oslo...didnt go over to well over here, as they "kept on coming"

[The Magistrate]

43. It Is An Odd Sensation, Sir, To Be Accused Of Optimism

People do not often do it....

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. I'm not trying to justify.

Most (although not all) Western supporters of the Palestinians agree that the murder of Israeli civilians by Arabs is completely unjustifiable.

A great many Westerners try and justify the(more than twice as frequent) murder of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians by Israel.

I think both are completely unjustifiable.

But that's neither here nor there. What I've been talking about is "what processes might bring peace?", not "which groups are or are not acting in a morally justifiably fashion?". I think the former is a far more worthwhile question.

[msmcghee]

47. You do know what murder is I assume.

It is not killing in self defense. My use of the word is specific.

[breakaleg]

49. How is killing innocent civilians not murder? Them being "innocent civilians" and all...

[msmcghee]

50. I understand why you would like to believe that . .

. . killing an innocent civilian while defending your own life is murder. But, it is not.

Killing an innocent civilian purposefully . . is.

Of course, some prefer the narrative whereby killing innocent civilians on purpose . . is the noble practice of martyrs who will get their 72 virgins. And also where any damage, injuries or deaths that result from attempts to stop them is actually racist imperialism and colonialism.

Care to describe in more detail your own pov on those issues?

[breakaleg]

51. You seem not to understand what self defense is. It's not a probably or a maybe or

maybe one day in the future, it's the here and now. Death due to carelessness or indifference is also not self defense.

Who prefers that narrative? As usual your comments are extremist and very typically insulting to suggest anyone here believes in such crap. Unfortunately, it's par for the course from you.

[msmcghee]

52. All matters of self defense are actually a matter of . .

. . probability - which is another way to say "maybe". It is always done in order to prevent an attack in the future - immediate or far. It does not hinge on how far in the future the attack may come. Its definition as defensive depends on the likelihood that it will occur and the availability of less lethal defensive measures.

Unfortunately, in most cases when someone has decided that your death is more important to them than their own life, their death is probably the only means that is certain to stop them. (As in suicide bombings.)

One factor in judging likelihood is past performance. For example, if Palestinian militants have killed Israelis regularly over the last several years, if they continue to kill Israelis whenever they have the chance, if the say they intend to continue doing so, if the mission statement of their organizations calls for the death of Jews, if they take credit for it when they are successful - that would constitute a pretty good likelihood in most courts throughout the world that Israel is justified in using deadly force to defend its citizens from them.

Maybe if you disagree you could provide an example from history where any nation was expected to allow another state to attack and kill its citizens - and was expected to use only non-lethal force to stop them.

If innocent Palestinian civilians are injured as a result of that defensive action then they did not die as the result of murder. In a domestic sense that would be called an accidental death.

I agree that "Death due to carelessness or indifference is also not self defense." It is called negligent homicide.

Care to explain where you disagree with that in the case of Israel / Palestine or Israel / Hisb'allah?

[breakaleg]

53. Well then, surely can find circumstances where innocent Palestinians were killed

that fall under the category of "negligent homicide" rather than "self defense", since it's innocent civilians that is the topic of discussion. You seem to use the self defense excuse under a rather wide umbrella which includes all deaths of Palestinians in this conflict, whether they were engaged in conflict or not.

[msmcghee]

54. Not at all.

I am sure that some Palestinian deaths from Israeli defensive actions are negligent homicide, some are accidental and some are actually probably murder. Although, the majority are self-defense.

When, in some cases murder occurs, it is not Israel or Israeli policy that murdered them . . it was likely an angry or unstable Israeli citizen . . who should be punished for that just as if he had murdered another Israeli.

So, there are two questions of culpability. Israel, as a matter of state policy - and individual Israeli citizens who may commit violent acts and actually violate Israel's state policy doing so

Israel's over-riding purpose is defensive and legal. The very few cases where murder is committed against Palestinians, it is not Israel that commits the act, but individual Israelis.

Contrast this with the government of Palestine that is complicit in attacks on Israeli civilians carried out with murder as the purpose, and whose political parties have a stated mission being the destruction of Israel. But, it seems you have done so already and have chosen the side that you find best fits your values.

[pelsar]

55. fall back position?

whereas i realize your looking very hard for a solution...you also admit that it might not work...so what then?

lets face it, leaving gaza didnt work out so well...i would say far worse for the palestinians than for the israelis, but leaving gaza only provided the jihadnikim with a better platform with which to attack from.

Same holds true for Lebanon....

both provided the Palestinians and lebanese a chance to improve their lives........both groups preferred the risk of israeli retaliation as opposed to putting their energies into improving their lives....

You might want to claim that its only a small percentage, it doesnt really make a difference does it....using a piece of land as a base with which to attack a state will no doubt get the reprisals as the state attempts to stop them.

your idea that we should just let ourselves be killed for some others can feel "good about themselves"...isnt really going to fly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. It's a gamble.

The alternative is that you continue with affairs as they are, in which case lots of people on both sides will *definately* get killed.

Withdrawing to the green line might well lead to more Israeli deaths than would otherwise have been the case in the short term (although I suspect you overestimate the extent to which that would be the case - there's nothing to stop Israel erecting security measures inside its own borders, and I don't think doing so would cause too much ill-will) but in the long term I think it almost certainly reduces the probable number of Israeli deaths in a given time period considerably.

Let me turn the question on its head: can you outline any other plausible sequence of events that might lead to an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I think that unless Israel does make a sizable unilateral concession, there is no chance at all of that happening, and given that better sooner than later.

[pelsar]

59. there is but one plausable sequence of events...

and its probably the only reasonable one from an israeli point of view.....you idea of us "sacrificing our children and ourselves on the "alter of peace" for an indeterminate period is a non starter. We're simply not going to take such a risk.

what is probably the only sequence of events:...that the palestinians in gaza decide to turn their society around, and put their energy in to making it work, and stop trying to kill each other and us. Forget the westbank in the meantime (for a palestinian looking at gaza i'm not so sure they are all too excited about not having the occupation). If they cant do it there, there is no reason to believe they can do it in the westbank

why is gaza the key?..not just for israel but for the palestinians themselves. Once they see that they can have a better life, with more security, better education, and their leaders learn to actually lead and govern, etc Their attitudes might change..note i said might. The westbankers taking note of the happenings in gaza might also decide to "start living".

___

your whole thesis asssumes a single strong palestinian govt that can control the various 'gangbangers".....at present that is not the case. Furthermore your basing your whole theory on "western liberal thought" completly ignoring the local traditions and politics....

furthermore, once there are kassams in the westbank...which is what your plan will no doubt lead to if its a failure....what then? There are no security measures to stop low flying missiles?

[oberliner]

6. West Bank gays more at home in Israel

As the British gay magazine Attitude approvingly reported in December: "Workplace discrimination against gay people is outlawed; the Knesset (Israel's parliament) has many openly gay members; in schools, teenagers learn about the difficulties of being gay and the importance of treating all sexualities equally. The country's army, the Israel Defense Force, has many dozens of openly gay high-ranking officers who, like all gay soldiers in its ranks, are treated equally by order of the government. The Supreme Court has ruled that gay couples are eligible for spousal and widower benefits.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/05/MNG5LNUTQG1.DTL

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Oh, well. That makes all the human rights violations acceptable then...

Right?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

8. according to israeli arabs...quite a few..

Poll: 75% of Israeli Arabs support Jewish, democratic constitution (oops....its best to stick with just the palestinian opinon...and of those just those in the westbank.... those in gaza it seems are having second thoughts as well)

its getting tougher and tougher to bash israel as time goes one.....seems even the israeli arabs know when they've got it good.

infact with israeli arabs and even some palestinians appreciating israeli democracy and its values its does make one wonder how others who dont even live in the region get theirs from?

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. and 76% of "Israeli-Arabs" say Zionism is racist

"Among the Arab respondents, 76 percent described Zionism as racist.

But more than two thirds said they would be content to live in Israel as a Jewish state, if it existed alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=839029

actually polls of Israeli-Arabs tend to show rather conflicting results. Some of the results can be disturbing.

[pelsar]

12. to be an arab-israeli-palestenian....

is to live in a very conflicting world.......the choices one would have to make for ones identity can be nothing but conflicting. I actually dont know if we can take the "polls" at face value

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. here is poll/article from Jerusalem Post that gives an analysis of what looks like a contratdiction

Poll: Israeli Arabs happy with Hamas win - link:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395572629&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Two-thirds of Israeli Arabs were pleased with Hamas's win but even more believe the State of Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, according to a survey presented at a conference Thursday about the trends of the Arab voters at the University of Haifa.

But despite their claims of support for a Jewish state, "What they don't agree to is a Zionist state, meaning a state which has the right to preserve its Jewish majority," Prof. Sammy Smooha, one of three sociologists who made the poll, told The Jerusalem Post. "They accept there is a Jewish majority but not that the state has a policy and law of return to preserve and increase the majority."

The poll was taken by the Jewish-Arab Center and the School of Political Sciences at the University of Haifa in the first week of March - a day after the attack by an emotionally distraught Jewish man on the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, which police later said was not nationalistically motivated.

It surveyed 500 Arab voters who voted in the last elections. The results showed that 69.5% believed that the state of Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, were not different from previous years, said Smooha. "We got the same results to that question in October 2003 and October 2004."

Only 3.4% of the 500 Arab citizens of Israel polled by phone felt that the Israeli government treats them as equal citizens. Some 49% said the government treats them as second-class citizens and 24% as hostile citizens who don't deserve equal rights."

[Englander]

14. For Gay Palestinians, Tel Aviv Is Mecca

Kathleen Peratis | Fri. Feb 24, 2006

>snip

And in Israel? Misinformation abounds. In a 2004 speech at the University of California, Berkeley, Alan Dershowitz said: “I support Israel because I support gay rights. Recently, a progressive congressman, Barney Frank from Massachusetts, worked with me and Israel to grant asylum for 40 Palestinian gays.”

Alas, not a word of this is true.

When gay Palestinian men run for their lives into Israel, they do not seek — and they cannot get — “asylum,” which is a special status under international law available to those who can establish a “well founded fear of persecution” in the country of their nationality or “place of habitual residence.” Israel has never granted asylum to Palestinians, gay or not, says Anat Ben-Dor of the Refugee Rights Clinic at the Tel Aviv University Law Faculty — even those who can credibly claim they will be killed if they are sent back to the West Bank or Gaza. This is because Israel interprets international asylum law — the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which Israel has signed — as inapplicable to Palestinian nationals.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Jerusalem advises any Palestinian seeking asylum in Israel that he or she is ineligible to apply. Nevertheless, in years past, West Bank Palestinians were sometimes allowed official or unofficial residence in Israel on any one of a number of humanitarian grounds. These included family reunification, medical treatment, fear of persecution or because they were blessed with high-profile friends. But not any more.

>snip

So what exactly was Dershowitz talking about? His email reply to my email query was, “The reference to working with Barney Frank is incorrect. Barney Frank told the story.”

As for Frank: He confessed to being Dershowitz’s source, to getting things a little wrong, and to confusing “house arrest” and “area arrest” with “asylum” — a little like confusing slavery with freedom. Frank did add that he intended to address these issues with Israeli officials.

Sadly, the activists I spoke to saw no alternative to the modest protection now afforded by “area arrest,” and even suggested that outside pressure might backfire. In the current climate, Israel is not opening its doors to gay Palestinians, period. Nothing personal. With more sadness than outrage, the activists acknowledge that erstwhile Palestinian asylum seekers in Israel are simply further examples of collateral damage in the ongoing Middle East tragedy.

http://www.forward.com/articles/for-gay-palestinians-tel-aviv-is-mecca/