Anyone who expected that his appointment as Foreign Minister would somehow ‘tame’ Avigdor Lieberman got a rude shock yesterday when he bluntly told a foreign ministry gathering that Israel was no longer bound by the undertakings reached at the November 2007 Annapolis conference.
He also told Haaretz’s Barak Ravid, “You won’t get any ‘Israbluff’ with me.”
He said he considered Israel was still bound by the Road Map provisions from 2003– but stated very clearly that the Palestinians must fulfill their side of the Road Map before Israel needed to do anything.
Regarding Syria, he told Ravid: “we have already said that we will not agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights. Peace will only be in exchange for peace.”
The positions articulated by Lieberman are very familiar– they are in line not only with his own previous rhetoric but also with the positions articulated and pursued by B. Netanyahu’s earlier government in Israel, 1996-99. No-one should be surprised, therefore, that Netanyahu has done nothing so far to disavow Lieberman’s most recent statements.
The foreign ministry statements were made at a ceremony in which Lieberman took over power from Tzipi Livni, who as head of Kadima will now be in opposition to the Netanyahu government. Many senior members of Israel’s diplomatic corps were there. Some were reported as visibly shaken when they heard the new line they will have to go out to the world to sell.
I have to say it does clarify matters to have Lieberman speaking with such apparent frankness about what Israel’s real policy towards it neighbors will be. In one of the news reports–I forget which– he was quoted as saying that actually his policy will be the same as that followed on the ground by the preceding government, despite its formal adherence to Annapolis. “How many settlements did they dismantle? How many roadblocks?” he asked.
Very good questions.
So now, what he is promising is a change from the policy of “pursue the colonization and control project on the ground while hiding it by participating in all kinds of meaningless negotiations”, by ripping off all the camouflage of the ‘negotiations’.
“No more ‘Israbluff'”, indeed.
Western governments, that have been very happy to connive in the whole “Israbluff” project for 16 years now and have even helped construct the various structures– Oslo, Annapolis, and so on– through which it was exercised, have so far been in apparent shock, and have been unable to say anything to stick up for their “endless negotiations” approach in the face of the demolition job Lieberman has now done on it.
AP reported that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now in London with Obama, called Lieberman early today. According to Lieberman spokeswoman Irena Etinger, “the conversation was conducted in a ‘good atmosphere,’ and the two agreed to meet as soon as possible.”
But nothing public from Clinton– or anyone else in the Obama administration– that expressed any criticism or concern about what Lieberman had said.
… I think I’m with Lieberman now– in this way: No more Israbluff, and no more Ameribluff or Eurobluff either.
Let each nation and group of nations pursue its own interests calmly and in a focused way and without participating any more in the mendacious edifice that the “peace process” has become ever since the solid principles of Madrid were transformed into the hocus-pocus of Oslo.
90 thoughts on “Lieberman: No more ‘Israbluff’”
Comments are closed.
Helena,
Shocked or not, you misinterpret what Lieberman meant by following the Roadmap. According to Haaretz:
Moreover:
If that is what Lieberman means by following the Roadmap, then he is serious about reaching a settlement. If that is mere pablum, then he is playing games. Or, perhaps your view, echoing your Hamas friends, is that Palestinian Arabs are not obligated by the agreements they make.
Lastly, Lieberman speaks in the manner of Russians. And Russians employ extreme bravado as a rhetorical technique. So, characterizing the speech as blunt may perhaps be a mischaracterization. I would call it Russianesque.
“”I recently went quite far with my remarks, even saying that I was willing to leave my home at the Nokdim settlement if there was a cabinet resolution on the issue, but we can’t give all this up for nothing, and there must be reciprocity.”
If that is what Lieberman means by following the Roadmap, then he is serious about reaching a settlement.”
Not serious about “reaching a settlement”, N..
Serious about “continuing the settlement”.
Don’t bluff even yourself on that.
Steve Clemons had a post awhile back (Feb 10) hoping that Netanyahu would become PM because then all the cards would be on the table (my words) and the world’s adults (my words again) might be able to settle things. Excerpts follow:
Give Us Netanyahu. Please.
I share Zbigniew Brzezinski’s view that both sides of the Israel-Palestine divide have proven themselves completely unable to solve an arrangement on their own. A Palestinian state is still possible — and Israel democracy without apartheid within its borders is also still possible. . .
However, it is time to move negotiations out of the weeds and re-engage various stakeholders on all sides of the equation – including the U.S., Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Syria, and the United Nations.
But “earnestness” in trying to move the Rubik’s Cube of the region into alignment is flawed. Israel and Palestine together don’t work. They can’t come to a responsible deal on their own. . . .
In fact, the more irresponsible both sides are about their situation, the more achievable a “new equilibrium arrangement” may be — because the US and other regional stakeholders simply can’t afford for the recklessness, immaturity, and sheer stupidity of leadership on all sides of the conflict to continue.
Given that. Give us Netanyahu. Please.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/02/give_us_netanya/
I disagreed with Steve at the time but Lord knows he’s smarter than I am, and he does have a point.
Well,
BBC news says that Lieberman has been interrogated during not less than 7 hours concerning an accusation of fraud and bribery.. It concerns the firm managed by his daughter.. The facts ascends to 2006. Naturally he says all is a political machination.
M… one wonders.. is someone trying to sideline him ?
also from the bbc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7978605.stm
Israel’s former chief peace negotiator says the way the new government is talking shows it will not be a partner for peace with the Palestinians…..
As Charles Sanders Peirce said back at the beginning of the twentieth century:
“Facts are hard things which do not consist in my thinking so and so, but stand unmoved by whatever you or I or any man or generation of men may opine about them. It is those facts that I want to know, so that I may avoid disappointments and disasters. Since they are bound to press in upon me at last, let me know them as soon as possible, and prepare for them. This is, in the last analysis, the whole motive in reasoning. Plainly, then, I wish to reason in such a way that the facts shall not, and cannot, disappoint the promises of my reasoning. Whether such reasoning is agreeable to my intellectual impulses is a matter of no sort of consequence. I do reason not for the sake of my delight in reasoning, but solely to avoid disappointment and surprise. Consequently, I ought to plan out my reasoning so that I evidently shall avoid those surprises. That is the rationale of the English doctrine. It is as simple as it is perfect.”
Those who base their reasoning about the Apartheid Zionist Entity upon the brutal facts of Apartheid and Zionism will not and cannot suffer the slightest surprise or disappointment when apartheid zionists exchange yet another neologism like “Israbluff” for yet another euphemism like “negotiation,” et cetera. And it argues nothing factual or real to placidly mouth the ludicrous fiction that two equally balanced “sides” exist in the dispute over historic Palestine and that therefore both “sides” bear equally the blame for one “side” getting everything it demands while the other “side” gets nothing it deserves. What a travesty of “reasoning” to claim that the Lunatic Leviathan U.S.A. and its pet parasite, the Apartheid Zionist Entity, only constitute one “side” in an equal contest with the dispossessed and dispersed Palestinians trapped in so many outdoor-toilet refugee camps like Gaza, etc. — when not either incarcerated or murdered outright each and every time they even hint that they might consolidate into a coherent and effective “side” to pursue their legitimate interests.
Fraudulent fictions and primitive word-magic please the perpetrators of Apartheid and Zionism — namely the A.Z.E. and the U.S.A. — at least for the present. Nonetheless, those who reason on the basis of reality will find it neither surprising nor disappointing when such sloppy, solipsistic semantics ultimately implode from their own implausibility.
Interesting that Liberman endorses the 2003 RoadMap in his very first speech, given that in the RM Israel unambiguously accepts a future independent Palestinian state and is obligated by the process to dismantle all post March 2001 settlements erected since March 2001 and freeze ALL others INCLUDING natural growth.
He even makes the point that even though he voted against the RoadMap it was approved by the Cabinet, Knesset and the UNSC in a binding resolution and as such is binding on the present Iraeli government.
Of course, unlike in 2003, Israel can count on the Hamas rejectionists refusing any of the Road Map provisions relating to renunciation of terror, violence etc and therefore torpedoing the whole thing. In fact, as I recall, it greeted the signing of the RoadMap back in the good old days with a suicide bombing at a Gaza/Israel checkpoint crossing.
But there is a possibility that Israel and the PA could power ahead with the Road Map for the West Bank, leaving Hamas and Gaza quarantined? In fact, already this is happening, with the coming on line of the newly trained Palestinian security forces taking over areas like Jenin and, of course, the Quartet still being intransigent on the Road Map provision that international funds only go to the PA.
It certainly gives something for Obama, Clinton and Mitchell to to work with. The Road Map seems a rational, grown up way to proceed which the new President would like.
Israel structured the language of the Road Map to insure that it could permanently ignore its obligations by claiming that it had none until all terrorism stopped. It is appears to be the intention of Netanyahu and Lieberman to continue this policy while continuing illegal settlement construction and insuring the death of any possible Palestinian state. Whether for shortsighted political gain or by wild eyed Zionist zeal, they are thereby eventually sealing the doom of a democratic Jewish state.
bb:
Wake the F up. Hamas was elected. They are more rational and have far more sense than Benny Nuts. Just ’cause he wears a nice suit and speaks unaccented English (Charlie Manson spoke nicely too) don’t make him an alter boy. And what’s with his sidekick, that guy from Moldova (I thought it was California wine all this time). Has anyone figured why this guy, from god knows where, is kickin’ the you know what out of my brothers. Where is the frickin’ justice? Where is the goddamn ICC or do they only do coloured and po’ white.
Helena is always very careful not to mention this, but when Netanyahu was PM ’96 to ’99 an international airport was opened in in Gaza by Bill Clinton, and the PA was building what was assumed IN ISRAEL Israel to be its future national parliament house for the palestinian state in Abu Dis on the outskirts of East Jersualem.
Netanyahu came to power as a direct result of the concerted Hamas suicide bombing campaign. But during his term the bombings and Hamas terrorist acts dropped dramatially. In return, Netanyahu pulled the IDF out of Hebron and negotiated further withdrawals in the Wye agreement, which were later abandoned by Barak who adopted Helena’s favored position – straight to final status negotiations – instead of the incremental confidence building path Netanyahu favoured. Barak’s policies of course, led to the 2nd intifada. Sharon and the Likud right bitterly opposed Netanyahu at the time.
Why did Hamas drop its suicide bombing in those days? Were they too gutless to take on Netanyahu? Who knows?
Anyway, Netanyahu will doubtless pursue his old policy of “reciprocity” again, and his government via Liberman has clearly stated its acceptance of a Palestinian State via the Road Map.
Given the Road Map was based on the original Mitchell Report – another aspect Helena likes to avoid mentioning – Netanyahu/Liberman’s declaration of committment to it will no doubt be greeted with much interest by Obama, George, Hillary and Dennis.
We are constantly reminded here that Hamas was elected to office (well, actually, they received a plurality and entered into a coalition with Fatah). Lieberman, and the current government led by the Likud, were also elected. The Hamas shills here are all over Lieberman for renouncing the Annapolis agreement (although he stated explicitly that Israel was bound to the Road Map). However, they fail to note that Hamas has renounced all agreements with Israel – Annapolis, the Roadmap, Taba and Oslo I and II.
Israel structured the language of the Road Map to insure that it could permanently ignore its obligations by claiming that it had none until all terrorism stopped.
Well, Jack, as I recall the Quartet issued the Roadmap to Peace, so I’d like to know just how Israel “structured the language”. While you can go on and on about “The Lobby” operating in the US, your case would be weaker in the EU, and simply fall apart where Russia is concerned, not to mention the UN.
Why exactly is Iran a stakeholder in the IP conflict? They dont share borders with Israel or Palestinians. They dont have a large Palestinian community.
Also, Helena-do you agree or disagree with Muezzin and Michael Murry?
JES,
No, you miss Jack’s point. I below quote him, italicizing what really seems to concern him:
Translated from his Newspeak original, the Israelis insisted that Road Map obligate Palestinian Arabs, among other things, to stop massacring Israelis as a condition for the taking of certain actions by the Israelis; such was incorporated into the Road Map. Jack believes that Palestinian Arabs have absolute rights and thus ought not be inhibited by any obligations, evidently even those they agreed to follow.
To Jack: if agreements have no meanings, then disputes are transacted solely according to the rules of the jungle. Or, in a word: might makes right.
Ifm Jack, the Palestinian Arabs cannot be counted on to abide by agreement provisions that, to the Israelis, are central to Israel’s concerns for ending the dispute, Israel is not likely to cede land by agreement to form a Palestinian Arab state. And, the concern to average Israelis is that ceded land in, for example, the West Bank, will be used – even if there were an agreement -, as Gaza is now used, as a launch pad for shooting rockets into Israel.
Hence, ignoring agreements makes it less, not more, likely that the dispute will be resolved. So, even if the Palestinian Arab side finds it difficult to restrain its hot headed warriors, it is an effort that, at the very minimum, is necessary to resolving the dispute.
JES, N.,
How to be fully committed to the settlement (‘s reservation):
Israel’s road map reservations
(Haaretz, 27/05/2003)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=297230
Yann,
Israel was entitled to clarify its reservations to the Roadmap. This does not mean that the Quartet had to accept them. Hamas, on the other hand, did not accept the Roadmap, nor does it accept any other agreements with Israel prior to the last tahidiyya.
Why did Hamas drop its suicide bombing in those days? Were they too gutless to take on Netanyahu?
My take is different. I think that the suicide bombings dropped off because Hamas had achieved its goals of having him elected and enjoyed having Netanyahu in office.
Remember, Wye was in response to Netanyahu’s mishandling of the Jerusalem tunnel opening and Arafat’s violent reaction, which created competition between Fatah and Hamas over who could be more reactionary and violent.
Rule now, liberate later
(Amira Hass, Haaretz, 30/03/09)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074827.html
“If they really aspired to liberation, the two Palestinian leaderships would break a few rules in the Oslo game. They would give up the process of Western-style elections, which is essentially divisive. They would find other means of expressing differences and consensus, and also of encouraging public discourse concerning all the methods of liberation that have failed so far.
But that is apparently no easy thing when the possibility of ruling, no matter how limited and sterile, is within reach.”
JES, N.,
Israel does not recognize Hamas (apart from the Palestinian rights) as legitimate but Hamas should accept previous agreements that it did not sign ?
Are you serious ??
Please read “without speaking of the Palestinian rights” instead of “apart from the Palestinian rights”.
Lieberman did not commit to the roadmap; he committed to the roadmap “as approved by the Israeli cabinet.” This approval contained 14 reservations including the following:
. Full performance will be a condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases. The first condition for progress will be the complete cessation of terror, violence and incitement. Progress between phases will come only following the full implementation of the preceding phase.
[As in the other mutual frameworks, the road map will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians].
Complete quiet is, of course impossible. Even th3e combined force of the Israeli army, navy and air force could not achieve it in Gaza. Thus Lieberman and Netenyahu have committed to do nothing and apparently specifically reserved the right to commit violence against any Palestinian at any time.
Yann,
The agreements are between Israel and the PA, not between Israel and Hamas. So, whatever Israel thinks of Hamas (or Fatah, for that matter) is essentially irrelevant to the issue at hand; the actual issue is whether the two governments will abide by the agreements they reached. Hamas says a Hamas led government will not abide. The PA, on the other hand, says it will abide, at least so long as Hamas does not lead the government.
Hamas rules Gaza, not by election but by its capturing the territory from the PA. If Gaza does not want to be a part of the PA, then Hamas has the right to propose whatever terms it wants. And, Israel has the right to tell the Gaza government what Israel wants. But, that is not how things are, diplomatically speaking. The PA, not Gaza, are recognized as the government. And the Hamas claims to be the party entitled to control the PA and Hamas claims that its PA will not abide by the PA’s agreements with Israel. Instead, as per the Hamas covenant, Hamas proclaims that it will conquer Israel by Jihad and turn the land into a waqf.
Jack,
You write:
Why can’t the Palestinian Arabs make a moral, political and military commitment to end violence as the means to help resolve the dispute. The Israelis, you will recall, brought their rebellious factions under control – recall the Altalena incident.
Further, Lieberman’s actual comment is that Israel is committed to the Road Map, as per UN Security Council resolution. His words: “I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council – I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.” So, reservations or not, Israel has committed to abide by what was agreed upon by the parties and made part of the International framework.
N., JES,
Hamas should have ruled all Palestinian territories because it won the election.
Right?
N, JES,
The Israeli government is only committed to disenfranchise all Palestinians (Palestinians Arabs, N., as you like to call them, just to recall us that they are Arabs; we know that, thanks!).
Stop bluffing even yourselves.
Yann,
Regarding Hamas’s rule, Hamas did not win an election that would permit them unfettered rule anywhere. They merely won the most seats in a parliamentary election. They did not win the presidency and they, at best, were in a position to share power.
The Israeli government is not intent on disenfranchising anyone. Rather, it aims for Israel to survive in the face of the genocidal war declared against Israel by much of the Arab and greater Muslim world, a war that has won support – notwithstanding its violence and gutter Antisemitism (or, perhaps, because of its violence and gutter Antisemitism) from fellow travellers in the West.
And, by gutter Antisemitism and genocidal intention, Exhibit A is the Hamas covenant. By violence, I have in mind things such as the kamikaze massacres, the rockets, etc., all aimed to massacre as many civilians as possible – with Palestinian Arabs handing out sweets to celebrate such massacres. Why? Because they aim to kill all Israelis, if possible.
All Palestinians are NOT Arabs.
N., JES,
What an easy choice to stand by the strongest!
What a shame…
N., JES,
What an easy choice to stand by the strongest, pretending it is self-defense!
What a shame!
Yann,
You write:
No. I stand against those who espouse – openly espouse – genocide and with those who would be the object of that genocide. No. That one side is “stronger” or “strongest,” even if true, does not mean that side is in the wrong.
N., JES,
Claiming fears of genocide aims at justifying mass killings and, above all, exploitation.
Don’t bluff even yourselves.
Yann,
Now, you are making no sense.
N., JES,
You understand what I mean but it is horrible, so you bluff!
In your face!
Yann,
State an argument, rather than waste computer space.
Jack believe that Palestinian Arabs have absolute rights and thus ought not be inhibited by any obligations, evidently even those they agreed to follow.
N.F. if they don’t have the right can you tells us briefly in your mind how JEWS from around the world have the right to do so?
What’re the biases makes this assumptions about people living thousands years on land although they were small number of communities surrounded with more “empty land”?
Is it your empty backyard should be claimed by people they think that this empty land and they have the all the rights to occupied and settled on without care by you?
BTW, N. F. (as he said he is not Jew not Israeli, but he is an expert in twisting and a Zionist Megaphone) Judah and Samaria Kingdome just last about 70 YERS, isn’t right N.F.
Is it the time to leave 2500yeas old dream behind and move forward as your bluff ilk JES requesting from others
Helena you may like to read this by FOX tycoon Rupert Murdoch
I am not Jewish but…
Salah,
I an not entirely sure what you have in mind. No one has absolute rights.
As I understand matter, Jews returned to their ancestral homeland, a place where there was an unbroken presence of Jews on the land for thousands of years. That is not a crime. And, it would not have been a crime even if there had been no ongoing Jewish presence on the land. In fact, migration of oppressed people to a place where refuge is made available is a basic human right, one as old as mankind.
Further, Jews sought to form a state on that land. That also is not a crime. Again, the right to act politically is a basic human right.
A dispute occurred between Arabs and Jews over the land. Jews were willing to make some compromises to advance their aim to form a state. The political clique which came to dominate Arab politics – by means of assassination and terror – was willing to make no comprises and, as a result, a war eventually broke out. The Arab side aimed to drive out or kill the Jewish population – i.e. their aim was ethnic cleansing. That aim followed the prior position taken by the national leadership, headed by Amin al-Husseini, who made a political pact with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews in historic Palestine. That genocide plan was defeated on the battlefield by the defeat of the Nazi army and its Arab friends.
Your position negates the basic human right of oppressed people to migrate to a place where refuge is made available. Your position negates the basic human right to act politically. And, your position, worst of all, has learned nothing at all from the uncompromising, moronic and vile position taken by the Antisemite and Nazi advocate al-Husseini and justified and, at this point, digested entirely by the Palestinian Arabs by means of propaganda directed at demonizing Jews.
If you read Hillel Cohen’s interesting book, Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948, you will see that the political position eventually adopted by the Arab side was not pre-ordained. It was political choice – and a bad one, born of prejudices about Jews -, and that choice led to the catastrophe that occurred for Palestinian Arabs. Occasionally, people on your side of the dispute might learn something other than the onward Jihad soldier game.
N., JES,
By claiming you fear a genocide, you justify mass killings and, above all, exploitation.
That is my point.
I know about the dead. You too.
Israel is the torturer. That is history.
To stop the injustice, the two peoples will have to live together.
Yann,
Anyone who supports the one-state solution hates Arabs and Jews. You are basically aiming to set up another Lebanon, with its more than a hundred thousands dead people.
No thank you.
I am sorry, Shirin.
N., JES,
Okay, I am the hater.
Don’t bluff even yourselves.
No problem, Yann. Palestinians are quite a diverse people, and include quite a few non-Arab groups. I think it is worthwhile to be aware of that.
You’re right Shirin.
Thank you.
That aim followed the prior position taken by the national leadership, headed by Amin al-Husseini,
Look N.F. enough this rant, and lies.
Amin al-Husseini is one of Arab can not be hold for this rant on all Arabs
Hitler had no use for Amin al-Husseini or Arab in fact Nazi PUT Arab in FIFTH grad of humans according to Nazi ideology. Coming here spading “ZIONESTS” lies and hold all Arab by one of them when you know it was just a show and not repressing Arab as such.
What about Italians who support Nazi by force and by support?
Due you hold them by your account for your Holocaust of JEW.
Enough lies and get real and as you ilk JES leave behind all those rant and work for today peace.
As calling me “negates the basic human right” this complete rubbish in fact you doing it and its mirrors your mind rather than me. With your blindly support of a terrorists state of Israel a new Nazism
Barni Madoff he is Jew so is t all Israelis are hold to his act tell us N. F.?
BTW NF, stop changing the discussion and run far from the points I pause to you.
If you really interested in discussion stick to the main points that put to you do not divert the discussion and run of from main lines.
by doing so you just proven your are nut…
Salah,
You write: “Amin al-Husseini is one of Arab can not be hold for this rant on all Arabs”
Amin al-Husseini was not just anyone. He was the accepted leader – accepted by Palestinian Arabs and by the Nazis – of the Palestinian Arabs. Hence, what he does matters more than what you or I or other average people do. And, his role in stirring up hatred by means of propaganda was considerable, as will be shown in a soon to be released book by Professor Jeffrey Herf. Moreover, as has already been shown by well known German scholars Klaus-Michael Mallman and Martin Cüppers, an agreement was reached due to al-Husseini’s efforts with the Nazis – which was supported by his political allies in historic Palestine – to exterminate the country’s Jews. That makes him very important and does impact on how the dispute is understood. It casts serious doubt on the “innocent” Palestinian Arab narrative that is widely propagated.
I certainly do not hold all Arabs responsible for the bigotry and hatred and genocide efforts of al-Husseini. On the other hand, the impact of his agenda on Palestinian Arabs has been considerable and the acceptance of his agenda by Arabs is well documented. His policy, which eliminated those interested in compromise by means of violence and threats of violence and his Antisemitism have permeated Arab discourse to an extraordinary extent. So, I think he is very important to any discussion of the dispute.
As for your discussions about Bernie Madoff, when he becomes leader of the Jews, then your comparison might be interesting. As matters now stand, he is an evidently very capable thief who deserves to rot in jail. But, other than to those he ripped off – largely Jews, by the way -, he is a man of no particular collective significance.
My views regarding the negation of rights concern the position held by Arabs when they say that Israel and its Jewish population are illegitimate. Such position amounts to a denial to Jews of basic human rights.
Israel does not recognize Hamas (apart from the Palestinian rights) as legitimate but Hamas should accept previous agreements that it did not sign ?
Yann, this is another example of turning cause and effect around. Israel does not recognize Hamas because Hamas has stated that it is not bound by previous agreements.
All Hamas has to do to be recognized by Israel (and, as far as we know to still be recognized by the US) is to (a)recognized Israel’s right to exist, (b) respect previous agreements and (c) renounce violence.
Full performance will be a condition for progress between phases and for progress within phases.
Jack, that’s what a roadmap is!!!!
Salah, N.B. Mommy told us not to use “skreetchy bold”.
Palestinians are quite a diverse people, and include quite a few non-Arab groups. I think it is worthwhile to be aware of that.
Perhaps, Shirin, you could clarify for us exactly what constitutes that “diversity”. Are you referring to language? Culture? Social criteria?
What I mean, JES, is very simply and specifically what I said. Not all Palestinians are Arabs. There are a number of non-Arab groups who are Palestinian and who identify as Palestinian, and who have been viewed and treated by Zionism and Israel as Palestinian.
So Shirin (not Sherry), let’s take a look at what the Third Draft Palestinian Constitution has to say about it:
Article (2) Palestine is part of the Arab homeland. The state of Palestine abides by the Charter of the League of Arab States. The Palestinian people are part of the Arab and Islamic nations. Arab unity is a goal. The Palestinian people work on behalf of its realization.
So, who exactly are these non-Arabs who “identify as Palestinian”?
JES, the third draft Palestinian Constitution is not proof of fact about anything other than its own contents and the majority point of view of its drafters.
Try again.
PS I suppose by citing the third draft Palestinian Constitution you are denying the existence of all those Christian Palestinians who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian, who have been denied their rights as Palestinians, and many of whom have struggled both violently and non-violently for their rights as Palestinians and the rights of all Palestinians.
Shirin,
When did these non-Arab Palestinians show up in the country? And, where did they come from?
Shirin, it is not I who am denying those Christian (Arab) Palestinians! It is the PA, by virtue of their Draft Constitution and Hamas, by virtue of their Covenant.
As to trying again, I suggest that you take a stab at it. You’ve made an assertion. Rather than arguing that the Draft Constitution doesn’t mean anything, I suggest you answer my question. As to the framers of the constitution and its content, I might suggest that you examine what it is in reality that makes the Palestinians a “nation”.
BTW, I know that there have been Armenians and Greeks, as well as Bosnians who historically (primarily over the past 150 years) have migrated to Palestine. I don’t believe that any significant number of these populations, however, consider themselves to be of Palestinian nationality.
JES,
The Bosnians – and others from the Balkans – are refugees who left during the turmoil in the Balkans during the 19th Century. Such people, more than a million of them, found refuge all along the coastal region of Asia Minor. It is my impression that there are quite a large number of such people, with many of them having settled in and around Acre.
So, JES, you admit that the document you presented as “evidence” does nothing whatsoever to refute the fact that there are Palestinians who are and who identify as Palestinians who are not Arabs. It is, in fact, evidence only of the prejudices of its drafters.
And what is really hilarious is that one of the classic Zionist arguments against the existence of a Palestinian identity is the very diversity that you and N. are now trying to deny.
Not all who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian, who are generally considered Palestinian, and who have been denied their rights as Palestinians are Arabs. That is a fact whether you, the drafters of the Palestinian Constitution, accept it.
So, JES, you admit that the document you presented as “evidence” does nothing whatsoever to refute the fact that there are Palestinians who are and who identify as Palestinians who are not Arabs.
He doesn’t have to refute it. Having introduced it to the discussion, you have to prove it or at least clarify what you mean by it. What group identifies as ‘Palestinian’ that is not Arab?
Oh, but he tried to refute it, and the best “evidence” he could come up with was nothing short of ridiculous. Or was that just a really lame attempt at diversion?
There are people who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian, and who have been denied their rights as Palestinians, and who are not Arabs. That is a fact. Some, though not all of those people historically predate the Arabs in Palestine.
You know, it’s really funny that the diversity of the Palestinians has been one of the classic arguments used by those who wish to deny the existence of a Palestinian people – apparently it is beyond them to imagine that people of diverse ethno-linguistic, racial, and religious backgrounds can possibly feel a sense of common identity based on historic habitation of a particular region. And would you also argue that all Lebanese and all Syrians are Arab?
Oh, but he tried to refute it
in fact he didn’t try to refute it … he asked you for a clarification which you ignored, choosing instead to repeat yourself:
There are people who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian,
You’ve said this already. At the very least your use of the term conflicts with other Palestinians use of the term, so your use is unclear. We are hoping you will clarify this term for us rather than challenging us to guess what you mean by it. None of us are psychic.
Oh, Vadim, but his presentation of the Third Draft Palestinian Constitution very clearly WAS an attempt at refutation. I mean, heavens! How can reality compare to documents from the PA and Hamas? And then JES, not too cleverly, tried to turn it into a discussion of what constitutes a nation.
But why is it so important to you all that in order to be Palestinian one has to be Arab? Oh wait, I know! If all Palestinians are not Arabs how can you insist that their proper homeland is anyplace in the Arab world? And yet, when Zionists want to prove that Palestinians are not a people, then they point to their diversity
There are, among others, Maronites, Sabaeans, Samaritans,and others who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian, who have been denied their rights as Palestinians, and who have communities in Palestine to this day. They suffer the same horrors, rights violations, and indignities as their Arab fellow Palestinians without discrimination. There are also Armenian Palestinians, Circassian Palestinians and others who have lengthy family histories in Palestine. They are not Arabs, and yet they are Palestinians, and identify as such.
And my use of the term Palestinian is not unclear at all, unless there is a need for someone to try to muddy it.
PS I forgot to mention that the Maronites, Madaeans, and Samaritans are among the peoples who predate the Arabs in Palestine.
And what is really hilarious is that one of the classic Zionist arguments against the existence of a Palestinian identity is the very diversity that you and N. are now trying to deny.
Again, Shirin (not Sherry), it is not I who am trying to deny it. It is the Palestinian Arabs. It it is you who still have to answer my question about diversity, and how you define it.
And would you also argue that all Lebanese and all Syrians are Arab?
But isn’t that precisely what Michel Aflaq and, later, Abdul Gamal Nasser tried to do? And, in fact, the term nakba (first introduced by George Antonious to describe the Allied breakup of the Arab world after WWI) was originally meant precisely to describe the loss Arab lands – not the suffering of a particular people.
But why is it so important to you all that in order to be Palestinian one has to be Arab? Oh wait, I know! If all Palestinians are not Arabs how can you insist that their proper homeland is anyplace in the Arab world?
Poor Shirin (not Sherry)! I think she’s really got herself tied up in a knot here. LOL. So, tell us, if there is such diversity, then what constitutes the “Arab world”? You think about that for a bit.
There are also Armenian Palestinians, Circassian Palestinians and others who have lengthy family histories in Palestine. They are not Arabs, and yet they are Palestinians, and identify as such.
Sure. The Armenians and Circassians have family histories in Palestine that date back approximately to the same time as the first wave of Jewish immigration in the 19th century. Most of them live in Israel proper, and most of them consider themselves Israelis and enjoy full rights. (The Circassians even serve in the IDF.)
There are, among others, Maronites, Sabaeans, Samaritans,and others who are Palestinian, who identify as Palestinian, who have been denied their rights as Palestinians, and who have communities in Palestine to this day.
As far as I can tell, the Maronites have communities only in Israel, and they are Israeli citizens, who enjoy full rights.
The Samaritans (pre-Talmudic Jews) fully identify with Israel. Those who live within Israel (in Holon) serve in the IDF and, again, have full rights of citizenship. Those who live in the West Bank were forced to abandon their homes inside Nablus during the first intifada (due to threats and attacks by Muslims) and moved to a settlement on Har Grizin. (This month, the entire community will celebrate Pasah together on Har Grizin.)
As for the Mandean Sabaeans, I think that this really shows your desparation.
N,
Yes about the Bosnians. In addition, the members of the Kabyle Berber (also non-Arab) tribes who revolted against the French in Algeria in the latter part of the 19th century also immigrated to Palestine.
JES, it is not “the Palestinian Arabs” who disagree with me, it is one document written by one group of Palestinian Arabs at one period in time. And I assure you that the many, many thousands of non-Arab/non-Muslim human beings who legitimately identify as Palestinians have far more authority on the subject of their identity than you or the PA or I will ever have.
And likewise what Michel Aflaq and Gamal Abdul Nasser tried to do is irrelevant to the actual identity of the people of the region. The fact is that the population of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and in fact nearly every Arab country includes numerous non-Arab peoples, many of whom predate the Arabs in the region by many, many centuries. Their identity is not determined by what Michel Aflaq and Gamal Abdul Nasser say about it.
Not all the Palestinian Armenians, Circassians, Maronites, and others live in Israel, and at least some of that group do identify as Palestinian. Certainly the ones I have been in contact with over the years identify that way. And as you indirectly admit, not all Armenians, Circassians, Maronites, etc. who live in Israel identify as Israeli any more than Palestinian Arab Christians and Muslims do. And I am sure any of the non-Jews who were part of the small minority of Palestinians who were not ethnically cleansed in 1948 will be very interested to know they have full rights when in fact as non-Jews by law they do not.
There are even Palestinian Jews who do not identify as Israeli and do not want to be Israeli. I have met some of them. They felt their lives in Palestine were good until the Zionists came along. Some of them became Israeli citizens for a time, and then left. For years I knew a Palestinian Jewish couple who were citizens of Israel, and who emigrated to Canada. After retirement they used to spend half the year in Canada, and half the year in Israel engaging in activism on behalf of Palestinians.
So, whatever you or the members of the PA who drafted the constitution, or Michel Aflaq, or Gamal Abdul Nasser claim, there ARE non-Arab Palestinians who legitimately identify as such.
Shirin (not Sherry),
Got our knickers in a twist, have we?
…it is one document written by one group of Palestinian Arabs at one period in time.
No. It is one of two documents (the other being the Hamas Covenant) written by two groups of Palestinian Arabs who enjoy between them the support of an overriding majority of the Palestinian people.
The fact is that the population of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and in fact nearly every Arab country includes numerous non-Arab peoples, many of whom predate the Arabs in the region by many, many centuries.
I wholeheartedly agree. Why, then, do you insist on calling them “Arab countries”, as there is no indication that “Arabs” – ethnically speaking – constitute the majority in any of the countries that you have mentioned? And yet Farouk ash-Shara and Boutros Boutros Ghali, when they served as Foreign Ministers, gladly represented Syria and Egypt, respectively, at the Arab League conferences.
As for your personal acquaintences over the years, well I expect that every society has its malcontents. Quite frankly, I’d say that you’re a case in point!
It is worth recalling the well known fact that the Palestinian population changed from being Aramaic- and Syriac- speaking (well, Syriac-speaking in the sense of the Palestinian dialect, not the same as the northern dialect which is the language of the Syriac texts), to being Arabic-speaking in about the 9th century. They are therefore basically a presently Arabic-speaking people of Semitic origin, with a proportion (not a majority) of ethnic Arabs from the peninsula, if you test their DNA. Some of the Semitic origins goes back a long way, certainly as far as that of the Hebrews (and don’t give me the crap, JES and NF, about it being proven that Palestinians are not Philistines; Israelis today aren’t Bronze-Age Hebrews either by the same standards). Christian Palestinians, in particular, are not ethnically Arab, though that is not an absolute statement.
Calling an Arabic-speaking person an Arab is like calling an American British, because he speaks our language (can we have it back, please?).
Self-identification, as mentioned by Shirin, is another and perfectly valid issue. I know about ancient and medieval history, not modern, so I limit myself to what I know about.
Alex,
Thanks for that very concise answer to the question that I posed to Shirin. Let’s see if I have this straight:
A linguistic definition (Arabic-speaking)
An ethnic definition (ethnically Arab, whatever that means)
A racial definition (genetically similar to other Arabs)
I also can agree perfectly with what you say about “[s]elf-identification,… [being] another and perfectly valid issue.” In other words, if Zionists see Jews, despite their apparent diversity, as comprising a national group, that’s perfectly fine, and certainly no less valid than, say, those who resided in Mandatory Palestine in 1947 as seeing themselves as a distinct Palestinian nation.
JES, I am sorry if you have your knickers in a twist. We do not, however. Perhaps you should remove them, untwist them, and put them back on if their twisted state is making you uncomfortable.
OK, so there are two documents written by two different small groups of Palestinian Arab men. That is still not “the Palestinian Arabs”, and in fact, if you ever bothered to talk to many Palestinians who live in the OPT, you would find that for the most part the support for either of those groups is far from whole-hearted. And even if they had whole-hearted support that does not mean that there is agreement with every action, every policy, or every word in every document or declaration they make any more than Obama’s supporters agree with him on everything. But you know that, of course, and are just playing your usual little game here.
And in addition to the above, even if every single Palestinian Arab believed absolutely that every single Palestinian was an Arab, beliefs, even very popularly held ones, are not facts. The fact is that there have always been and continue to be people who can legitimately be identified and who identify themselves as Palestinians and who are not Arabs. Some of them are even Jews.
Your argument about calling Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Arab countries is just too silly to even address. Surely you can do better than that, JES. On the other hand, your other arguments are not all that much better, so maybe not.
Now, please do untwist your knickers as they do seem to be making you quite uncomfortable, and appear to be disrupting blood flow to your brain.
And BTW, Alex, I did not intend to give you any “crap” about the Palestinians not being Philistines. In fact, I believe that there is good evidence (both genetic, but mostly ethnographic) for a portion of the Palestinians (particularly those around Hebron) actually being of Jewish origin.
Thanks, Alex, for distilling this argument very nicely, and for adding to it as well.
So, JES, it seems that you know very well that all Palestinians are not Arabs, and were just playing your usual games.
Why am I not surprised?
if you ever bothered to talk to many Palestinians who live in the OPT, you would find that for the most part the support for either of those groups is far from whole-hearted.
LOL. Shirin (not Sherry) when was the last time you were in the OPT and spoke with many Palestinians?
Many of the people who post here – even the person hosting this forum – assure us that those two “small groups of Palestinian Arab men” have the whole-hearted support of the vast majority of Palestinians. That’s why they claim that Israel should negotiate with them, because they represent the majority of the Palestinian population. Otherwise, why should we bother?
Of course I know that not all Palestinians are Arabs or Muslims. However, my purpose in asking you was to emphasize the point that it is precisely those Arabs and Muslims (not Jews or Israelis) who have succeeded in defining Palestinian nationality so as to exclude non-Arabs and non-Muslims. The fact that you exhibited your lack of knowledge with such bullshit examples as Mandean Sabaeans and Samaritans in response is just a bonus.
Your argument about calling Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Arab countries is just too silly to even address.
Really? Why is that?
JES, it might shock you to find out that I am in regular contact with Palestinian individuals and groups in the OPT, and receive regular reports from various Palestinian sources. I guess you have never heard of the telephone, and the internet. And there is also satellite TV. Amazing stuff. You should look into it.
But you have already admitted that you know that what I have said is a fact, and that not all Palestinians are Arabs, and thereby implicitly admitted that you are just playing one of your silly games here, so I am not going to waste any more time on this conversation.
…so I am not going to waste any more time on this conversation.
At last!!!
Shirin,
Do non-Arab Palestinians have the right to object to a Jewish presence in Israel? If so, what argument supports such a position? Further, do non-Arab Palestinians have the right to object to Israel as a country? If so, what argument supports such a position?
N., what a bizarre question. Of course non-Arab Palestinians have a right, and the reason is so obvious you should not have to ask. They have the right for exactly the same reasons that Palestinian Arabs have the right.
Shirin,
So, what is the basis for non-indigenous groups to protest the presence of Jews?
Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine whether they are Arab or non-Arab.
And we are not talking here about protesting the presence of Jews, and you know it. You know very well what the basis for the protest is, so don’t play coy. It’s not cute.
N.,
Could you, please, explain why you switch from talking about “non-Arab Palestinians” to “non-indigenous Palestinians”?
Shirin,
By the explanation above, what you now say is untrue. Many people who claim to be Palestinians are not from the country at all. Among those who are not are Bosnians, who fled the Balkan in the 19th Century. And, they are not alone. There were many Christians who found refuge in the country during the 19th Century.
Again, what is the basis for such people to claim that Jews need to leave the country?
Yann,
Palestinian Arabs and Jews claim to be indigenous to the country. They make claims going back for thousands of years. Whether the claims of either is true is another day’s discussion.
By contrast, Bosnians and Armenians and Turks are often recent arrivals with no historical connection with the country at all. They came in the 19th Century. If you want to claim that Bosnians are indigenous, then the claim that anyone involved is non-indigenous is nonsensical.
N.,
“If you want to claim that Bosnians are indigenous, then the claim that anyone involved is non-indigenous is nonsensical.”
Sorry, I don’t understand your point.
Anyway, what about Gypsies?
N., too bad you are not as mute as you are intentionally deaf.
I told you to stop trying to be coy. It isn’t cute, and it is not at all interesting. In fact, you are putting me to sleep.
Yann,
The argument made by Palestinian Arabs is that they are indigenous; hence, they, not Israelis have the right to be in the country. Shirin says the same argument can be made by non-Arab Palestinians.
My point is that such an argument, even assuming it were a good one for Palestinian Arabs, cannot be made with a straight face by Bosnians, Turks and others who label themselves Palestinians.
N.,
Please, stop being nasty if you want to continue the conversation with me.
The bottom line : noboby has a right upon anyone.
People are human beings before anything.
Have you heard about Domari Gypsies?
They (certainly not alone) carry the Kantian message : “The inhumanity inflicted on another destroys the humanity in me.”
In fact, you are putting me to sleep.
We are not going to accept your absolute authority on anything, particularl on Israel and Palestine. So, go to sleep already!
Yann,
I am not being nasty. I have merely set forth my position on the topic at hand.
What about the Domari Gypsies do you have in mind for me to address?
There is certainly a lot of inhumanity in this world. My preference is that all of us do our part in helping to reduce the amount of inhumanity.
Be that as it may, my position related to Shirin’s non-Arab Palestinians. Do you have something to say on that topic?