Today’s Haaretz carries exciting news about a proposal for an Israel-Gaza ceasefire that has been jointly drafted by Khaled Amayreh, a Hebron-area journalist who is close to Hamas (and whose work I have frequently cited here), and Rabbi Menachem Froman of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa.
Haaretz’s Yair Ettinger writes:
- “Our proposal was presented to the highest political echelon in the Hamas government in Gaza and gained 100-percent approval,” Amayreh told Haaretz Sunday, while refusing to name the government officials. Froman said the document was presented to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has yet to respond to it.
Even if the attempt turns out to be merely an academic exercise, say Froman and Amayreh, its elements could be used by the Jerusalem and Gaza governments.
The way Ettinger describes the document, the agreement would include provision for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who has been held by Gaza Palestinians as a POW since spring 2006 and is now well established as being under Hamas’s general control. It would also include a full tahdi’eh (ceasefire) between Israel and Gaza and some, though not all, elements of a more far-reaching hudna between Israel and Palestine.
Ettinger writes:
- The Hebrew and Arabic document contains verses from the Koran and the Bible and states, “God is the greatest of all and He alone can bring an end to the problems between the noble Palestinian people and the distinguished Jewish people in the Holy Land.”
I really love this formulation for dealing with the 120-year-old contest between Palestinians and Jews for control of the Holy Land: Leave that big issue to the Almighty, working in His or Her own time, which is not the same as politicians’ time!
And more immediately, there is this:
- The proposal calls for Israel to lift its sanctions on the Gaza Strip, permit economic relations between Gaza and the outside world and open all border crossings. The Israel Defense Forces would end “all hostile activities toward the Gaza Strip, including targeted assassinations, the setting of ambushes, aerial bombardments and all penetrations into Gazan territory, in addition to ending the arrest, detention and persecution of Palestinians in the Strip.”
The Palestinians would be obligated “to take all the necessary steps to completely end the attacks against Israel,” including stopping “indefinitely all rocket attacks on Israel,” assaults “on Israeli civilians and soldiers” and “to impose a cease-fire on all groups, factions and individuals operating in the Strip.”
Two last quick points here. One is that I’m assuming that in addition to the release of Shalit the document also makes provision for the release of many of the Palestinians held in Israeli detention– who include around 45 of the parliamentarians elected in the free and fair Palestinian elections of January 2006.
On another page, Haaretz tells us that “Hamas has given Israel a letter apparently written by abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit… The authenticity of the letter has been examined and sent to the Shalit family.”
So it looks as if the letter was deemed authentic enough to send it on to the family. It seems, too, that Hamas has underlined in this way that it does indeed have control– whether direct or indirect– over Shalit and therefore, by extension, is in a position to assure his release if its conditions for an Israeli counter-release are met.
The Haaretz article gives further details of the negotiations over how many, and which, Palestinians Israel is prepared to release. Olmert is reported to have relaxed his criteria for the release somewhat, but negotiations among Israel’s various security bodies still continue and the writer’s sources say there may not be a deal for a number of months yet.
And finally– this is something of direct relevance to what I was writing yesterday— this morning, a Palestinian suicide bomber who had reportedly crossed into southern Israel across the lightly guarded border with Egypt blew himself up in the Negev town of Dimona, killing one Israeli woman and himself, and wounding 11 other people. A second reported bomber was shot dead at the scene by police before he could detonate his vest.
So here’s a very important aspect of the attack that Haaretz and others report:
- Abu Fouad, a spokesman for the Fatah-allied Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades – which claimed responsibility for the attack – said the operation had been planned for a month, but was made possible after militants violently opened Gaza’s border with Egypt on January 23.
But here is my concern: Is there a possibility that Israel’s leaders, politically embattled and embarrassed by last week’s release of the final portion of the Winograd report, might use the Dimona attack as a pretext to hit back hard against the people of Gaza and the newly empowered Hamas leaders there?
Israel’s often pugnacious Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, has reportedly been pushing for a significant military attack against Gaza for some time now. He doubtless has the plans for such an attack all ready to go. Barak has been particularly embarrassed by the fall-out from Winograd because before its publication he had vowed that if the report was critical of PM Olmert then he would lead the Labour Party out of the governing coalition. The report was very critical of Olmert’s leadership during the 33-day war, though not naming him or anyone else by name. Barak has not resigned.
(Btw, I find it fascinating that party discipline in the Labour Party is so weak these days that this was apparently a decision that Barak alone, as party leader, could make. Shouldn’t it have been a party decision? Just asking here… )
I’ll just note that almost exactly 25 years ago, when Defense Minister Areil Sharon was itching for any excuse at all to launch a big attack against the PLO in Lebanon, he used the pretext of an attack made against the Israeli ambassador in London by operatives from the virulently anti-PLO Palestinian faction of Abu Nidal to launch that attack.
Let’s hope wiser heads will prevail this time.
Look at what Sharon’s invasion of Lebanon led to!!!
- * The birth and amazingly successful establishment of Lebanon’s Hizbullah party, which previously never existed.
* An 18-year quagmire for the Israeli troop presence in Lebanon, which was finally ended only when Ehud Barak himself, as the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel decided to pull the last troops out unilaterally, in 2000.
* The rise in the occupied territories of the first generation of home-based Palestinian national leaders, who five years after 1982 launched their first, remarkably successful– even if ultimately aborted– Intifada.
A full-scale invasion and reoccupation of Gaza this time round could be expected to have results considerably more counter-productive than that from Israel’s point of view.
That’s why the Amayreh-Froman document and the cautious, tension-calming path forward that it lays out, may gain some traction within Israel in the weeks ahead, just as it already has with the Hamas leadership. Let’s hope so.
An accord has to be partly drafted by a current Israeli government official to be meaningful. I have yet to see evidence of anyone with power in the Olmert regime wanting anything other than total war with Hamas, much less a peace accord. So I’m afraid accords like these will be meaningless, unless the Israeli public finally kicks out all the Likud/Kadima hardliners, and wiser people like Froman actually come to power.
Typo- Shlomo Argov, the ambassador whose assassination sparked the 1982 war, was the Ambassador to the UK, shot in London – an even thinner pretext of course than a nonexistent Israeli ambassador to Lebanon being shot. Sadly, I agree with Inkan’s comments above.
Oops, what a dreadful typo. Thanks so much for catching it, John R! Now corrected…
Well, I don’t expect that the Amayreh-Froman accord will immediately be adopted as Israeli government policy. But I still think it’s a massive breakthrough.
Firstly, it proves to the skeptics from either side that Hamas supporters and Israeli settler rabbis are people who can be engaged in a very constructive dialogue for peace. (And they can do it without massive injections of funds from western donors, too.)
Secondly, it proves that having a strong religious grounding to one’s life and thought can sometimes actually help people to find creative solution to extremely thorny political-diplomatic problems. In this case, over the issue of the longterm sovereignty status of the whole of Israel/Palestine. “Leave it G-d’s wisdom to work that one out”– what an amazing and very helpful way to think about this! And now, in the meantime, we have this and this immediate problem to solve… so this is how we propose going about that…
Thirdly, their formulation of postponing the determination of the longterm sovereignty actually allows for the emergence over time of either a one-state or a two-state outcome. In a one-state outcome, Rabbi Froman would have more chance of staying in his settlement in Teqoa, and Khaled Amayreh’s friends who are Palestinian refugees could have more of a chance of returning to their families’ original homes inside 1948 Palestine… So it’s a fascinating coalition-in-waiting that could build up there, of people on both sides who don’t like the shape of any two-state “solution” that might emerge…
So okay, I agree Olmert is not about to actually do this. But don’t underestimate its longterm importance, either.
This is an important development esp. because the Shin Bet has harassed Rabbi Froman in the past when he’s attempted to announce such important initiatives. Luckily, he’s succeeded this time in outsmarting them & getting his proposal out there. But I’m doubtful it will have an impact on Olmert & the political echelon. It is very good atmospherics though for Israelis to know that there is an alternative to bellicose warmongering of the type engaged in by Barak.
My blog post linked to this comment covers the same story w. slightly diff. spin & a bit of background about Froman & his past activism.
unless the Israeli public finally kicks out all the Likud/Kadima hardliners, and wiser people like Froman actually come to power.
Inkan1969, I think this been very applicable to US than Israeli if that happen in US then those “Likud/Kadima hardliners” get less support and encouragements to do so.
But the example there in US we had president and administration elected twice with all here talking and blaming them for their mistakes and propaganda “War on Terror” the fact is the people are elected them and supporting them they should blame themselves in first place.
BTW, some they will say I did not voted in that lection, this is killing claim and it is a double sin if some one says this.
“use the Dimona attack as a pretext to hit back hard against the people of Gaza and the newly empowered Hamas leaders there?” +++ Worser. Barak “Dimona justifies staying in goverment”. More Worser: hit hard against the West Bank. Nobody in the coalition can go into a large operation or extralegal killings for the next weeks. They all had predicted an attack coming out of the Sinai and thats why they like the story of Abu Fuad and thats why they will talk a lot about strengthening the border to Egypt until the next desaster appears. Jumping from one desaster to the next desaster, thats the future of this coalition.
But if we look at the “texts”, we can not find a “proove” of the Sinai-version:
1st: Khaled al-Jabari confirmed to Maan that it was a joint action of al-Aqsa + PFLP + “URB”, but denied the Sinai-infitration
2nd: Abu Fuad confirmed later the Sinai-infiltration. [Abu Fuad and his failed “Summer Storm” and “Autum Rain” [“Protect our people” Qassam-campains] seem to need a little “Winter Lie”-propaganda to change his image.
Now, we are at: “An initial investigation by the IDF and the Shin Bet Monday revealed the possibility that the terrorists involved in the suicide bombing in Dimona this morning came from the West Bank, and not from Gaza as was reported earlier.” + Palestinian Authority sources also estimated that the bombing was carried out in collaboration with West Bank operatives. The PA’s security forces have already released the names of two West Bank residents suspected of being involved in the attack, but PA officials stressed that the identity of the suicide bombers remained unclear at present.” [Ynet]
I thought the suicide bombing at Dimona was very conveniently timed to justify a strong Israeli reaction. We’ll have to see what eventuates, if a strong reaction is what happens. But it did occur to me that it might well have been organised by Israel.
Is this offer new at all?
My understanding has been for a long time that the stalemate-point is that Israel demands Hamas or any group representing or claiming to represent the Palestinians to accept a Jewish state or there can be no talks.
Hamas has all along offered a long-term cessation of current attacks on both sides and a prisoner exchange but without accepting Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.
The Hamas position has been more reasonable than the US/Israel position ever since the US/Israel position was formulated.
Arnold Evans,
more reasonable than the US/Israel position ever since the US/Israel position was formulated.
Is there any US/Israel changes soon?
Clinton, Obama: The Anti-Israel Factor
So what is a candidate to say, particularly about the Arab-Israeli conflict?
A candidate should say:
That should be the basic message just as it should be our basic policy.
By M.J. Rosenberg
M.J. Rosenberg is the Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum (IPF), a position he has held since the spring of 1998.
If Khaled Amayreh is serious about peace, then perhaps he should cease to oppose other people’s peace efforts. Amayreh has repeatedly voiced opposition to a two-state solution and has repeatedly attacked any political or social figure who dared make any compromises with the Israelis.
He also categorizes Israeli officials as Nazis and uses the most outrageous, offensive, and inflammatory language possible.
I have some experience with this guy, as he was a participant in a dialogue group that I partook in for several years. He would routinely pepper the site with bizarre, long winded tirades about the Talmud, insisting that it was a racist document, and use sources like Israel Shamir and Israel Shahak as his “proof.” And there were the regular accusations of Ashkanazim not really being Jewish.
A little bit of research by people in the group found that, a few years ago, he was quoted almost exclusively on sites like “Zundelsite” and in other hate publications. But that was apparently enough to get him a gig as an Al-Jazeera “correspondent” in the West Bank, where he could peddle the Hamas line as truth.
Despite opposition by many, the moderator of the group continued to allow him to participate, because he did not want to be accused of “silencing” anyone’s voices. Khaled eventually left the group of his own accord because he did not like other people countering his tirades with factual responses.
So now he claims to have come up with a “peace plan.” Of course it’s not. It’s a “cease fire” of an indefinite duration where Hamas refuses to acknowledge the state’s right to exist, and where Hamas can easily avoid accountability for any breaches.
Under most circumstances, I would say that a proponent of such a deal is well meaning, even though a cease fire that allows Hamas to re-arm and rebuild is, on balance, too much of a risk. Given Amayreh’s previous track record, I can’t even give him that benefit of being well meaning. He has repeatedly demanded that Israel cease to exist. I take him at his word.
Not surprisingly, Helena gushes all over him. She particularly likes the “only God can bring peace” line. But when you take a look at how Hamas (Khalid’s party) sees G-d bringing peace, you realize what a frightening line that is.
We should encourage peace efforts at both the official and the grass roots level. Proposals such as the One Voice Initiative and the Geneva Accord (both bitterly opposed by Khaled) help push peace along. We should not try to disguise racists such as Khalid Amayreh as “peace activists.” Then again, this is a site run by a “Quaker-Buddhist” who got giddy and excited when Hezbollah started a disastrous war, so what do you expect?
So, Joshua, what you are saying is “we cannot negotiate with Hamas.” Oh, and that Hezbullah started the war against Lebanon. It might add something to the dialogue if you were to explain what it is that you are demanding that Hamas recognise. Israel’s right to define its own borders at will? The extinguishing of the rights of Palestinians of muslim and christian backgrounds? I am very sad if the gentleman in question was a supporter of Zundel but it is not surprising that Palestinians, consistently stonewalled wherever they turn for understanding of their, infinitely sad and unjust, fate will listen to anyone who will lend them an ear.
Say what you will about Khalid but I doubt that he ever served in a brutal occupation army.
It sounds like a useful basis for beginning negotiations, provided that the Palestinians fully recognize Israel first. There is absolutely no point in any attempts to negotiate until the Palestinians show themselves willing to accept international law and show “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.” The UN and the rest of the world recognized Israel long ago. But Israel needs to hold out and insist on recognition before it so much as speaks to the Palestinians. Anything else would just be giving the Palestinians the chance to rearm and continue their attempts to steal Israeli land.
About the Hamas proposed cease fire:
It’s a “cease fire”
Yes.
of an indefinite duration
Yes. Well, unless a duration is agreed upon in negotations. I’ve heard the figure of 20 years
where Hamas refuses to acknowledge the state’s right to exist,
Yes. But I consider that just as reasonable and legitimate as Mandela refusing to acknowledge a right to exist of a White South African state.
and where Hamas can easily avoid accountability for any breaches.
Woah! Where does this come from?
Removing people from their homes against their will is just not a legitimate way to create an ethnic state. It is no more legitimate (but more evil) than allowing them to stay and denying them the vote as occurred in South Africa.
I am wryly amused by Joshua’s strongly implied position that you can only, really, ever negotiate with some who already agrees with all your own positions.
As by his assertion that I “gush” all over Amayreh. Actually, I am strongly admiring of the effort that both these men, Amayreh and Froman, have put into working and working and working to find a mutually accommodatory position that respects both of their core positions.
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that this anonymous “Joshua” who lives, I believe, in the US, disdains dealing with Amayreh in any way based on a fragmentary internet encounter with him while Rabbi Froman– who lives not just within Israel/Palestine but in a settlement in the currently under-occupation West Bank and therefore in a more vulnerable position than most Israelis– sees it worthwhile, probably even valuable, to invest considerable time and attention in dealing with him face-to-face and through friendly discussion. There is surely something interesting going on there.
So “Joshua” wants to parody my position in order to criticize it. But what do you say, Josh, about the good Rabbi?
I don’t see much that is new in this proposal. The idea of leaving the difficult issues (Jerusalem and the right of return) to a later date was a basic component of Oslo. Perhaps leaving these issues to God is innovative. But, just maybe, God wants us humans to solve these problems ourselves!
I tend to agree with Joshua that the One Voice Initiative and Geneva Accords offer a much better route to a settlement than this plan worked out by a single rabbi and a journalist, who have gotten approval from unnamed Hamas “government officials”. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve admired Rabbi Froman’s long-standing efforts to engage Palestinians – particularly as he is a settler living in one of the most ideological settlements in the West Bank. I just don’t see these two individuals as having the means of really moving such a plan forward.
(I do find it interesting and amusing that the Palestinian people rate “noble” status, while we Jews are ranked as only “distinguished”!)
As for Arnold’s comments, I don’t see any more justification for Hamas to refuse to recognize Israel than I do for some Israelis to refuse to recognize the Palestinian people as a nation with the right of self determination. Both are non-starters. And, again, the apartheid analogy simply does not fit here. You can argue all you want, but Israel is simply not an apartheid state by any accepted definition of that term.
On a more technical note, I think that the issue of avoiding accountability brought up by Joshua has to do with the fact that the wording provides for specific actions on the part of Israel, while essentially requiring a best effort (“take all the necessary steps”) when referring to Hamas. While this could just be a result of the reporter’s paraphrasing, it could lead to a situation where Hamas could claim that they took “all the necessary steps” to stop attacks, but that they were not able to effect the ending of hostilities. A ceasefire is meaningless if one of the parties is incapable of enforcing it.
Err, I’m hardly “anonymous” Helena. At least no more than anyone else here who does not choose to publicly post contact information. At the very least, I do not operate under a pseudonym and pretend I am of a different country or ethnicity, which has been the confirmed m.o. for at least one of your more hateful colleagues that regularly posts here.
I hardly expect someone that I dialogue with to agree with everything I say. I find it amusing that you claim I “parody” your position, but completely fabricate and misrepresent what I have said.
I note that, in your desperate attempt to make personal attacks, you completely avoided the substance of what I have pointed out, which is:
1) Amayreh has routinely opposed peace efforts that have much more support from both the grass roots and official figures.
2) Amayreh has not only opposed the peace efforts on substance, but has engaged in personal attacks against any official who dares negotiate or compromise with Israelis.
3) Amayreh has routinely written antisemitic drivel (not criticizing the Israeli government, but attacking Jews and the Jewish religion directly) that has been published in racist publications, which were his only significant forum until Al-Jazeera made him a “West Bank Correspondent.”
4) Amayreh refuses to accept the basic premise of any peace agreement, which is that Palestine and Israel both have rights to exist.
I would also have to note that this plan suffers from one thing which you have repeatedly harped about, the issue of “incremental steps” rather than a comprehensive agreement. The “peace plan” is an indefinite cease fire, and does not address the final status of anything. It leaves these things for a future date “when G-d brings peace.” Had the Israeli government and the PNA reached an agreement like this, it would have been roundly criticized as all fluff. But apparently incremental steps are ok when you are someone trying to create an arrangement that will eventually abolish Israel.
As for Rabbi Froman, I have criticized the above agreement on substance. At the very least, the rabbi does not have the documented track record of spreading hate that Amayreh does. So one can give him the benefit of the doubt to an extent, even if one believes the proposals are not substantively strong.
Joshua, instead of trying to engage with the substance of the approach that Amayreh and Froman have been working on, you are spending time (yours and ours) here making personal attacks against Khaled Amayreh that you do not even bother to try to substantiate?? Why should we even listen to you or provide server space to your accusations? Provide your evidence so we may see it, or stop making the accusations (and apologize for the ones you have made.)
I have met Khaled Amayreh and participated in a long substantive discussion with him. I’ve read many of his writings, though not all. I’ve never seen or heard him make anti-semitic attacks.
I have read things he’s written in which he exressed very sharp attacks on some PA officials, primarily in connection with misuse of public funds and/or poor negotiating skills. I don’t think those amount to personal attacks; and in many or most cases they had considerable merit. (Can anyone seriously claim that the PA/PLO leaders are free from corruption or that the negotiating strategy they have pursued since 1992 has brought benefits to the Palestinian people?)
But more importantly, let us all focus on the substance and possible power– or shortcomings– of this proposal itself.
As a first step for that, I think we would need to see the actual text in its original languages. Otherwise the kinds of critiques JES raises– on the accountability wording or “noble” vs. “distinguished”– cannot really be explored. Personally, on that latter one, in English I don’t see a difference and I would love to have it explained to me what role is played by the use of such honorific adjectives, anyway…
So if anyone has access to the texts, please send them to me.
There’s plenty of Amayreh’s tripe, easily findable on the web. Just a small sampling…
Khaled on one of his famous “Talmud Tirades”:
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/07/21/atrocities_in_gaza_lebanon_motivated_by_1
“There is no doubt that a rudimentary survey of Rabbinic commentaries on the status of non-Jews according to Halacha (Jewish religious law) , of both present and past, reveals that a decisive majority of Talmudic sages view goyim (the derogatory Hebrew term for non-Jews) as either animals or sub-humans.” (also quoting Shahak, et al).
Khaled Amayreh belittles and opposes peace negotiations, all while using extremist language to attack anyone who supports Israel.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/839/fr1.htm
“What point can there be in holding further discussions beyond trying to cajole or bully the Arab side into accepting the occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land by Ashkenazi supremists?”
Khaled Amayreh calling Israelis “reptiles” and “nazis.” On the well known hate site, Radio Islam.
http://www.radioislam.org/lebanon/jewish-war-on-lebanon-2006/Jewish-Gestapo.htm
“The heart-rending scenes of the Bahr al-Sudaniya massacre in Gaza on Friday, 9 June, shows the Israeli army as it really is, a reptile-Nazi-like army of thugs, hoodlums, and common criminals, not unlike the Gestapo, SS and Wehrmacht.”
Khaled Amayreh claims that “Zionists” lie about the Holocaust:
http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Holocaust%20Denial%20in%20the%20UK.pdf
See Footnote 22: The website which it refers to no longer links to Khaled’s hateful article. However, I personally read that article, and also saw that it had been republished on the Zundelsite.
These outbursts by Amayreh are well documented and well known by anyone who has had any dealings with him. I accept your apology for your outrageous claim that I was fabricating what I, and many others have read.
When a people decide that the land they were not born in is theirs, because God promised it to them, they decide on God’s behalf to ethnically cleanse its inhabitant, and commit premeditated atrocities on a daily basis. God is well and alive in this scenario, He is Great and Omnipresent.
When you have Hizbullah and Hamas asking for International laws to be implemented and executed to bring peace and stability to all, these two parties become evil and “frightening” .
Now that is what I call “surprising”.
When you cut through all the verbiage, it all comes down to one simple question imo:
What exactly does Hamas consider to be “occupied territories”?
We live in a world of ethnic antagonism and competitive economic relations. The healthiest part of the global economy is the weapons bazaar. Violence is therefore inevitable in Israel/Palestine and everywhere else.
The desire for an absolute ceasefire as a precondition for negotiations seems reasonable at first, but in fact it’s a recipe for grid lock, because any rejectionist with a rifle or a pipe bomb can derail the ‘peace process.’
“The website which it refers to no longer links to Khaled’s hateful article.” It still does.
“However, I personally read that article, and also saw that it had been republished on the Zundelsite.” This is untrue. You can find it in the newsletter, there never was an entry on the main page.
Quote: “I could safely conclude that everything and anything said or written by the official Israeli-Zionist establishment, whether on Palestinian refugees or on “the only democracy in the Middle East” or, indeed, on “the” holocaust, should be thoroughly doubted and questioned, for Zionists are pathological liars and they should be treated as such until proven otherwise. Indeed, Israel’s infamous and nefarious lies about the Palestinian plight and her continued misrepresentation of truth and reality about her genocidal torment of the Palestinian people, which transcends reality, should force all truth-seekers to think a hundred times before giving any Zionist story or narrative the benefit of the doubt.”
You can really detect a dirty bashing of the establishement, but … http://hiram7.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/lauder-sz-25012008.pdf … the establishment sometimes has a very strange way to express democratic values BEHIND their words about the Shoa.
Ah yes! Here it is in the archive, the link to see this chestnut is…
http://www.mediamonitors.net/khalid3.html
Again, this was also published in the Zundelsite.
JES:
I’m not quite sure what you are saying when you say there is no comparison between Apartheid and Zionism. Well I am quite sure, but it’s silly.
Both South Africa’s Whites and Israel’s Jews are human beings. That’s a comparison.
They both wanted to create states that would protect what they consider the interests of their ethnic groups. That’s a comparison.
One group made the calculation it could best maintain an ethnic state by keeping the outside group in place but denying that group political rights. The other group calculated that it would be best to remove enough of the outside group that its preferred ethnic group would have what it considered a sufficient majority. That’s a difference, but it is still a comparison.
Even different phenomenon can be compared. Capitalist economies are compared to communist economies all the time. I’ve seen fire compared to ice. To compare two things does not mean to assert that the two things are identical.
You prefer not to compare Zionism to Apartheid because it is a comparison that reflects badly on Israel. You want to declare all comparisons off limits because you’re not able to convincingly avoid that bad reflection if you do.
Of course it’s not going to work. Of course only already convinced supporters of Zionism could even pretend to be persuaded by “Israel is not an apartheid state by common definitions”.
But I guess you feel the need to type something, and if that’s the best you can come up with, then that’s what you’ll type.
No matter how much you want to avoid the comparison, there is a continuum of more evil ways to accomplish an ethnic state. There is the Jim Crow/Apartheid way, where an outside population is denied political power but allowed to remain. More evil is the Zionist way, where an outside population is driven away and denied the right to return because of their ethnicity. Still more evil than that is the native-American/Tasmanian way where the outside population is made extinct or nearly extinct by murder.
Of course there is a comparison. Of course the establishment of Israel is not exactly the same as the establishment of Apartheid South Africa. Of course these are projects with the same essential objective, where the South Africans chose the less evil means to accomplish that objective.
On the one hand you’re being silly to say there is no comparison, but on the other hand, that’s kind of what you have to say.
About “all necessary steps” what do you take “necessary” to mean? If missiles have not stopped, then in itself all necessary steps to prevent missiles have not been taken. But regardless, if you don’t like that language, the language can be negotiated. Your side does not want to negotiate.
There is no difference between that and telling Mandela that negotiations cannot start until he accepts a White state in South Africa. The idea that Israel is justified in withholding electrical power until Hamas accepts a Jewish state is pure evil.
Somebody else:
We have to be clear about what demands or positions of Palestinians are equivalent to what positions of Israelis.
An Israeli Jewish position that all non-Jews should be driven from the territory or killed is equivalent to an Arab Palestinian position that all non-Arabs should be driven from the territory.
An Israeli position that Jews should have in terms of area and in terms of value a vastly disproportionate share of the territory is equivalent to a Palestinian position that Arabs should have a vastly disproportionate share of territory.
An Israeli position that there should be one state that treats different ethnicities equally and if that state happens to have a Jewish majority the state’s government should have a Jewish majority is equivalent to a Palestinian position that there should be such a state.
It almost seems as if you’re claiming a Palestinian position that there should be one state is equivalent to an Israeli position that Palestinians should be driven out. That is sick. But that’s kind of what you have to claim in your position.
Arnold, I don’t know whether you are simple-minded, or the people you normally talk to are simple-minded, or if you are assuming that I am simple-minded. Well, on the last count, I can assure you that I am not, and that your demagoguery just sounds foolish to me.
You know perfectly well what I mean when I say the analogy doesn’t fit. There is a very clear legal definition of apartheid. Israel does not in any meaningful way fit this legal definition. there is no equivalence. Further, your attempt to classify Israel, for what appear as purely political and propaganda purposes (which I believe you made apparent in one of the entries in your little blog), and in contradiction of the accepted legal definition is insulting.
By way of comparison, you might want to look at people who insist on using the term “islamofascism” to describe Hamas, or those who immediately compare them with nazis. Well, Arnold, both the nazis and the Palestinians are people, aren’t they? They both want to create an ethnic state, and the more fundamental Muslims among them have clearly universalist aspirations to spread their beliefs throughout the world. Does that mean that the Palestinians are nazis?
Perhaps your heuristics help you organize your thoughts and collection of facts and half-truths. That doesn’t mean that they represent things as they are, and I still don’t think that you are in a position to define for everyone else in the world what “pure evil” is or to declare that one side or the other wants or doesn’t want to negotiate.
Now that I think of it, there may be a Mandela comparison here after all: Winnie and Suha Arafat.
JES:
You’re doing the best you can. And I don’t think any reasonable reader of my last post and your last post would need my help now in showing how you missed the point that I made pretty clearly.
And you had to miss it, no matter how complex-minded you are, there just is not a good answer. As you’ve shown.
I could rewrite the same post, using slightly different words, but I have a feeling I don’t have to.
Anybody else on still reading this thread:
Read my 10:27 post, then read JES’ 11:58 post and if you consider the 11:58 post worthy of a response, let me know and I’ll respond. We’ve reached the point again where, unless someone tells me otherwise, all my points have been made. I’m not going to convince JES and there comes a point where it just stops being fair for me to continue.
I must take Mr. Evans’ side here. Analogies are by definition inexact, but there are certainly similarities between apartheid and the situation in Israel, and particularly in the territories. This is a grave comparison to make, particularly because it involves the Jews, a people who have endured a punishment far worse than that of apartheid’s victims. But it’s past time to stop blaming the messenger, and start dealing with the news.
It almost seems as if you’re claiming a Palestinian position that there should be one state is equivalent to an Israeli position that Palestinians should be driven out.
Arnold, “that there should be one state ” may be your own position, but it isn’t the “Palestinian position”. As was suggested to you during the last discussion, large majorities of Palestinians accept the fact of a Jewish state. Why are you intent on undoing a border that large majorities of each people accept?
“a border”? Where? The “border” is an ongoing work-in-progress.
Apartheid in the West Bank and siege (recently leaky) in the Gaza Strip: statements of the obvious, I’m afraid, best attempts at sophistry notwithstanding.
“But it’s past time to stop blaming the messenger, and start dealing with the news.” Indeed.
“There is a very clear legal definition of apartheid. Israel does not in any meaningful way fit this legal definition. there is no equivalence”
Apartheid:racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa.
I see a replica, but unlike Watson’s “This is a grave comparison to make, particularly because it involves the Jews, a people who have endured a punishment far worse than that of apartheid’s victims”. Are you being sarcastic?
In other words it is okay for victims of other conflicts to inflict injustices on sovereign people. Actually this is exactly why Finkelstein calls it ” The Holocaust Industry” the victim and the victimizer ganging together. That is what a free and just mind will not accept.
This is why there is Helena, Rachel Corie, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Arnold, Carter, Mandela…. and many others
The “border” is an ongoing work-in-progress.
Perhaps, but Arnold (a non-Israeli, non-Palestinian with zero skin in the game) wants *no border to exist*.
I’m sorry you find this detail uninteresting.
I come across the “skin in the game” argument from time to time. You can’t possibly mean that seriously. It is a terrible argument. I shouldn’t have to explain why but here goes:
Cuba and the Arab world had no skin in the game in their opposition to Apartheid. The idea that everyone else in the world has some obligation to stay out of disputes that do not directly involve them is directly opposite current standards of morality.
Now the idea that opponents of a Jewish state should keep out, but supporters of a Jewish state (with equally no skin in the game) should continue the billions of dollars of direct aid and the further billions of dollars shoring up dictatorships that are required to prevent over 100 million Arabs from having governments that reflect their views on Zionism is bizarre.
I hope that’s enough.
Anyway Hamas’ position is that the question of removal of borders can be deferred, under cease-fire conditions, for over 20 years. That is a very reasonable position.
Hamas, the winners of the last Palestinian election – despite outright and disgusting US coercion of the type “we’ll starve you if you vote for Hamas” – has no more moral obligation to accept that there ultimately will be a Jewish state than Mandela had to accept that ultimately there would be a White state.
Apartheid:racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa.
That’s and interesting definition, but I had the legal definition in mind:
The ‘crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Funny, but that doesn’t say anything about the “oppresion and domination” having to be by Europeans against non-European groups. In other words, the recent dispossession, public beating and humiliation and murder of whites in Zimbabwe all qualify under the law, to the extent that they were carried out systematically and sanctioned by the regime.
One additional comment for Arnold who wrote:
The idea that Israel is justified in withholding electrical power until Hamas accepts a Jewish state is pure evil.
We can leave aside his pontificating about what is evil and what isn’t, but Israel neither witheld electrical power from Hamas, nor did it make ending the siege contingent on Hamas acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. Pure fiction on Arnold’s part here.
Vadim asks a good question as to why Arnold is “intent on undoing a border that large majorities of each people accept?” I suspect because Arnold can only make his phony Apartheid case if he’s talking about the “river to the sea”, because Israel is clearly not an apartheid state in any sense. But all this is purely cynical propaganda for Arnold, as he reveals, in his own words:
If the Iranians and other Muslim anti-Zionists understood how effective it is rhetorically in the West to associate Zionism with Apartheid, they’d explicitly draw the comparison every single time their position on Israel comes into discussion.
It’s not that it’s true, or that the analogy is particularly apt, rather it’s because it’s “rhetorically” effective, particularly in the West.
And back to the main point… I don’t argue that there are not those within Israel that want an apartheid-type system. Some of the more radical settlers (Geula Cohen comes to mind) want just that. The fact is that the vast majority do not, and they have expressed this at the polls – repeatedly. Moreover, every prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin (with the possible exception of Netanyahu) has stated the need to reach a settlement precisely to avoid an apartheid-type system.
Hamas, … has no more moral obligation to accept that there ultimately will be a Jewish state
Luckily, Hamas is a minority among Palestinians in rejecting the Jewish state! And in general Hamas doesnt seem particularly popular — they’re trailing Fatah in public opinion polls, even in Gaza. Poor Arnold! All that effective rhetoric falling on deaf ears!
Vadim:
If it is the case the Palestinians do not reject the Jewish state, then that would be lucky. On the other hand luck or not, accepting a Jewish state is not a moral obligation.
But, according to your link from earlier, 43% of Palestinians accept a Jewish state that is able to limit the amount of refugees who return.
Maybe the plan is to keep starving them until that inches past 50%. But then what happens when you aren’t able to starve them and it inches back down?
If you’re lucky for now, congratulations. But Palestinians have every right to cause your luck to run out and end their support for a Jewish state.
JES:
Remember earlier when I wrote that I’ve seen comparisons between fire and ice, even though fire isn’t ice? I am able to point out similarities between Israel and Apartheid even if Israel isn’t a replica of South Africa.
Oh, the reason comparisons are rhetorically effective is because they are apt. Once again Israel does not have to be exactly the same as Apartheid South Africa for there to be generally true comparisons that can be drawn. Fire is hotter than ice.
The reason you want to ban comparisons altogether rather than address them on their own terms is because you don’t have a reasonable argument that specific individual comparisons are valid. As I keep saying, you’re doing your best.
Here is a comparison from earlier. It is valid even if Jim Crow is different from Apartheid which is different from Zionism which is different from the genocide of the Native Americans which is different from the genocide of the Tasmanians.
No matter how much you want to avoid the comparison, there is a continuum of more evil ways to accomplish an ethnic state. There is the Jim Crow/Apartheid way, where an outside population is denied political power but allowed to remain. More evil is the Zionist way, where an outside population is driven away and denied the right to return because of their ethnicity. Still more evil than that is the native-American/Tasmanian way where the outside population is made extinct or nearly extinct by murder.
I empathize for you. It is a hard case you’re trying to make.
“Arnold (a non-Israeli, non-Palestinian with zero skin in the game) wants *no border to exist*.”
I cannot speak for Arnold, but I am quite sure most of us, Palestinians and non-Palestinians alike, would be happy if there WERE a border.
I was not being sarcastic at 2/7/08, 01:02 AM above. I will try to be more precise.
1. It IS valid to compare the conditions which Israel is imposing on Palestinians to apartheid.
2. The comparison is ‘grave’ because the perpetrator is the state which represents the people who have suffered history’s greatest calamity, and who remain at risk because of the persistence of anti-Semitism, and the ongoing need for scapegoats.
3. Israelis are rightfully sensitive to apartheid comparisons, because the actual victims of South African apartheid are competitors for the Jews’ catastrophic ‘distinction’ as the group which has suffered the most monstrous crime in history. (I am aware that our planet is drenched with blood, and that there are other groups who have suffered atrocious and long-running persecution.)
4. It is NOT okay for victims of conflicts to inflict injustices on other people. But in the 1930s and 40s, the notion of justice and rights was scarcely applicable, and certainly not to Jews. They were in extremis. They cannot be blamed for commandeering a lifeboat in that storm. Likewise, Palestinian Arabs cannot be blamed for fighting for their land, which the WW2 victors awarded to the Jews as compensation for the Nazi crimes.
5. For the first four decades of the Israel-Palestine conflict, one can reasonably say that both sides were right. For the last twenty years there has been a solution possible pursuant to UN Res. 242. The Israeli government has rejected it.
6. So it is fair to say that Israel is now on the wrong side of a war of choice.
Thanks for the clarification, I learn a lot from the commentators, you seem to be politically correct in your choice of wording, if you do not mind I will quote you on your explanation as to why Israelis refuse comparison with South African apartheid “actual victims of South African apartheid are competitors for the Jews’ catastrophic ‘distinction’ as the group which has suffered the most monstrous crime in history.”You’ve finessed this point.
However, I believe that Palestinians are suffering in the same catastrophic way the Jewish people had during the Nazi Party rule, slowly but surely.
Warsaw and Gaza, is the comparison valid?
Of course European Holocaust survivors are in no way to be “blamed for commandeering a lifeboat in that storm” and living in harmony amongst whomever they chose, but not on the expense of others. The victors of WW2 are culprits in the atrocities Israelis are inflicting on Palestinians on a daily basis for the past 60 years.
We owe them a solution.
The reason you want to ban comparisons altogether rather than address them on their own terms is because you don’t have a reasonable argument that specific individual comparisons are valid. As I keep saying, you’re doing your best.
Where did I say that I want to ban comparisons? I said the analogy is inapt, but if you want to compare then, by all means compare. So far you have made assertions rather than presenting comparisons. Present a us with an accepted definition of apartheid and then illustrate how the State of Israel falls within that definition. Compare away.
As to your applied comparison and the “Evans continuum of evil”, well why don’t you complete the full spectrum of evil for us, seeing as you consider yourself the expert to pontificate on such things. For example, where was the siege of Jerusalem on that scale? I expect it’s right up there with the Zionist “evil”? How about suicide bombers? Are they maybe just a little bit evil? Where did the evil of Dresden fit in given the evil of Nazism?
Hey “world peace” let me give you a clue.
Between 1933 and 1945 the Jewish population of Europe declined by 50% and the worldwide population by about a third. Since November 1947, the Palestinian population has grown about 400% and the Arab population with the area of Mandate Palestine has more than doubled.