Responsibility for Rachel Corrie's Death; Plenty to Go Around:

Although much of the debate surrounding the tragic and untimely death of 23-year-old peace   activist Rachel Corrie of Olympia, Washington, who was fatally mowed down in mid-March 2003 by a bulldozer operated by 2 Israeli soldiers, while trying to save an ordinary Palestinian family's home from demolition,  has been somewhat muted due to our then-impending and now- present wars in Iraq,  Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is still much fierce debate to go around, whether it be on blogs, forums, or even in chat rooms. 

 

 I, myself have written some opinions on it, and have had some people disagree with me, sometimes calmly, sometimes angrily.  I do not  support Israel’s longterm occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem,  with the demolition of Palestinian homes,  the extremely harsh treatment of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli Army and the rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers, the  illegal building of Israeli Jewish settlements by the Israeli Government in the Occupied Territories,  and the regular sorties by the Israeli Army into those territories that frequently result in the maiming and/or killing of innocent Palestinians civilians.  All of these actions/behaviors are  wrong--and  clearly detrimental to the people under occupation--the Palestinians,  but are equally bad for the occupier--Israel.

 

 

However, I believe that the fact that the Palestinians are stateless and oppressed today is also partly the fault of the rest of the Arab world as well as Israel,  not to mention many of the Palestinians themselves.  Back in 1947-1948,  the Arab countries, refused to accept the UN-proposed partition of the land in question into two separate, independent sovereign nation states of Israel and Palestine, and began a long campaign of war against the then-newly-formed State of Israel in the hopes of destroying it, a campaign that more or less continued for many years thereafter, exploiting the disenfranchised Palestinians as a political football for that purpose.   

 

Jordan and Egypt  ruled over the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank from 1948 until 1967,  when, in early June,  during the Six-Day War,   Israel, encircled by 3  Arab armies poised on its borders ready to attack, launched a pre-emptive strike, taking those lands and others by storm.  Israel has been occupying those lands too long, and the time for Israel to  make peace with its neighbors,  and to withdraw their troops and settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is now long overdue.

 

Now, for the crux of  my present essay: 

 

The International Solidarity Movement, of which the late Rachel Corrie was a member, is a grassroots organization, which was founded in 2002.  The ISM, as it's often called for short, regularly sends volunteers from the United States, Europe, Canada, and some other countries into the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem to act as buffers between Palestinian civilians and the Israeli Military and the rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers. 

 

Despite frequently being shot at, tear-gassed and roughed up by the Israeli Army,  the ISM's activities include monitoring soldiers at checkpoints, staying with Palestinian families to protect their homes against demolition by  Israeli Army-operated bulldozers, walking Palestinian children to and from school, and making sure that Palestinian civilians can go about their regular lives and business without abuse from the Army or the right-wing Israeli settlers.  ISM members have also been known to sleep by wells and greenhouses in the occupied territories to protect them, and also to supplant themselves between bulldozers and Palestinian civilian families’ houses that've been slated for demolition, and  to sleep in Palestinian civilians’ homes to protect them from demolition.   

 

Members of the International Solidarity Movement regularly document abuses by the Israeli Army and by rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers and relay the information back to their respective countries, in order to make them aware of what's happening in the Occupied  Palestinian Territories.  Before going into the Occupied Territories,  ISM volunteers get two days of basic training in role-playing, how to communicate with soldiers and settlers, and how to engage in nonviolent resistance.  Unfortunately,  despite the  best intentions of the International Solidarity Movement,  many, if not most of the members of the ISM have not had a great deal of experience, particularly in dealing with extremely volatile situations such as the Middle East, and, with only very basic training to begin with,  tactical and strategical mistakes have also been made.

 

Here's what happened:  After receiving a cell-phone call on the afternoon of March 16th, 2003  from one of her colleagues in the ISM telling her that a bulldozer operated by Israeli soldiers was about to demolish  the house of Dr. Samir Nasrallah, a Palestinian pharmacist, and his family,  who Rachel and other ISM members maintained a friendship with,  and whose house they had frequently slept in  to help protect it from demolition. (Dr. Samir Nasrallah, btw,  had  never even been accused by the Israeli military of being a terrorist), Rachel  quickly caught a taxi cab back to the general vicinity  of Dr. Samir’s house in the city of Rafah, which is located on the southernmost part of the Gaza strip,  near the Egyptian border.

 

Rachel then supplanted herself between the Nasrallah house and the  Israeli Army-operated bulldozer, wearing a kaffiyeh as well as a bright orange vest  that identified her as an "international", as  the  International Solidarity Movement members are often referred to.  Several of her colleagues and friends in the ISM were standing aside,  as Rachel singlely supplanted herself between the bulldozer and the house of Dr. Samir Nasrallah, which she thought was about to be demolished by the bulldozer.

 

The bulldozer began to pile dirt underneath and around Rachel Corrie's feet.  Determined to stop the Israeli soldier-driven bulldozer from demolishing the Nasrallahs' house, Rachel stood her ground and kept climbing up on the mound of dirt piled up by the bulldozer,  until she was at eye level with the cockpit of the bulldozer and could see the two Israeli soldiers inside.  Rachel had another option at this point:  she could've turned or rolled aside and away from the bulldozer to avoid getting hit. 

 

However,  as Rachel kept climbing forward, her foot caught on the blade of the bulldozer,  she stumbled, and was pulled from view of the bulldozer.  By then, it had been clear that Rachel was in trouble, and  had begun to panic.  A number of her colleagues/friends in the International Solidarity Movement who had been protesting and standing in front of bulldozers for the past 2-3 hours, at that point,  and who were then standing off to the side,  seeing that Rachel was panicking,  had gestured, screamed and protested for the soldiers driving the D9 Bulldozer to stop, but to no avail.   Rachel Corrie,  by this time,  having fallen from view of the bulldozer,  was cut down,  horribly and fatally,  by the blade of the bulldozer, which had run over her once, and then backed up and ran over Ms. Corrie once again, ultimately killing her.  

 

There's no question but that the soldiers operating the D9 bulldozer that had fatally run  Ms. Corrie over were responsible for Ms. Corrie’s  death.  Yet, it's also true that the Israeli government, by their policies of occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, which were designated as Palestinian land, and the destruction that it has wrought, including the demolition of Palestinian's houses and settlement policies, created the circumstances that ultimately led  up to Rachel Corrie's tragic and untimely death in the first place.  The United States, and the  West, generally, have also abetted  the situation by not putting more pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories and allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state in the territories. 

 

 That being said, I definitely agree that Israel has absolutely no business in the Occupied Territories and must withdraw their troops and settlers--now. 

 

Yet (here's something  that many people may well disagree with me on), at the same time, I believe that the International Solidarity Movement's leadership, despite clearly good intentions,  made some strategic and tactical mistakes which also contributed to  and made the loss of Ms. Corrie's life more likely.  Prior to Rachel Corrie's death, several ISM members, including Ms. Corrie herself, had encountered  narrow escapes while standing/sitting between bulldozers and Palestinians' houses slated for demolition.  One young woman from Ireland,  who'd been standing between a bulldozer and a  Palestinian family’s house slated for demolition, was pulled out of the way of the bulldozer at the last minute by another ISM activist,  who sensed that things were getting out of control when the bulldozer she’d been trying to stop began piling dirt underneath and around her feet. 

 

Another ISM member, a young man from the United States,  barely escaped serious injury or impalement when the bulldozer he'd been trying to block, stopped at the very last possible moment.   The young man had to be extricated from a mesh of concertina wire near the house by other ISM members.  Several other ISM members, including Ms. Corrie herself, had been shoved into the side of a house by a bulldozer, at which point Ms. Corrie predicted that the next time around she probably wouldn't be so lucky.  Unfortunately, she was proved right;  her prediction very tragically came to pass shortly thereafter. 

 

All of the above having been said, I believe that the narrow escapes that several ISM members (including the late Ms. Corrie herself) had while standing singlely between bulldozers and  Palestinians’ houses slated for demolition,  definitely should have been a wake-up call for the International Solidarity Movement to immediately alter their strategies. I believe that, had they operated in a larger arena and stood as a larger group between bulldozers and houses, as opposed to allowing people to stand singlely in front of bulldozers, that the likelihood of serious injury and/or death would've been far less likely.

 

Unfortunately, Ms. Corrie, overwrought with passion, as well as a fiercely burning idealism,   also did not use the best judgement when she decided to stand singlely between the bulldozer and the Palestinian family’s house slated for demolition, which, along with the Israeli government's occupational policies in West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, the criminally reckless, irresponsible behaviour on the part of the Israeli soldiers operating the bulldozer that ran Ms. Corrie over, plus strategic and tactical mistakes on the  part of the International Solidarity Movement, also contributed to the loss of Ms. Corrie’s life.

 

I also believe, that, while Ms. Corrie’s tragic and untimely death definitely underscore the horrors of war and occupation,  it  also shows that  activism has its limits.  The wisdom of sending relatively inexperienced people who’ve had two days of very rudimentary   training at the most, out to act as human shields, especially in such a volatile, unstable and dangerous part of the world such as the mideast, is, I believe, questionable at best, and, at worst, no less foolhardy than what the United States Government is presently doing by sending our own men and women soldiers over into Iraq and Afghanistan to either kill or be killed.

 

Rachel Corrie's parents, Craig and Cindy, and her sister, Sara, attempted a class action against Caterpillar, the USA manufacturer of the bulldozer that rolled over and fatally cut down the late Rachel Corrie, but they lost that in court, and Caterpillar essentially said that they had no control over how their products were used once out of their hands.  Recently, Rachel Corrie's family was in Haifa, Israel, where they tried a class action against the State of Israel, the Israeli military and the Israeli Defense Ministry for the wrongful death of Rachel, as well as for accountability for Rachel's death by Israel, her military, and the defense ministry.  Unfortunately, the Corrie's verdict was struck down by Judge Odeon Gershon in Haifa District Court, where Rachel's death was ruled as an accident.  Frankly, Rachel's death was no accident, but that doesn't mean that her friends and colleagues in the ISM shouldn't have also protected her a little better.   Operating in a larger arena would've been a much wiser, more protective strategy for the ISM to pursue, and, imo, would've reduced the likelihood of serious injury or death, and Rachel might very well be alive right now.  Without knowing her family personally, I'm sorry about their loss.   Losing a loved one is tough, regardless of their age, or how or why it happens.  Yet, it's agreed that Israel doesn't belong in Gaza Strip, West Bank or East Jerusalem in the first place, and they should pull back from those territories, for their own sake, as well as that of the Palestinians residing in those territories.  I think, although I'm not entirely sure, that the Corries plan to appeal Judge Gershon's ruling in Israel's Supreme Court, which, hopefully, might get them somewhere.  

 

Frankly, I think that the soldiers driving the bulldozer that fatally mowed down Rachel Corrie that day should've at least been convicted of manslaughter, or perhaps 2nd degree murder.  The Corrie family wouldn't have gotten everything they wanted, but they would've gotten something, and not come away empty-handed.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A good, Fair Minded View of the Rachel Corrie Matter....

(#289817)

 

...except for two items; I think the court rulings were correct (the soldiers did not intentionally run over Rachel) and, East Jerusalem will never be Palestinian...if I have anything to say about it, and I'm not a Jew. I'd fly there tomorrow and fight for East Jerusalem if it were being surrendered.

 

In 1948 the Jordanians completely and totally raised the Jewish section of the Old City, an unforgivable act of barbarism.

 

In 1967, when Israel took the Old City back, interestingly, and listen up here, the al-Aqsa was set to be demolished during the battle but was stopped by Moshe Dyan of all people.

 

I often wonder how the current world would be different if the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock were dynamited in 1967...

 

Hummm?

 

Traveller

Some burned embassies.

(#289843)
mmghosh's picture

Some riots here.  Much talk.  Universal condemnation.  And then the world goes on.

Thank you, Traveller.

(#289902)

I'm aware that Jordan and Egypt ruled over the Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza Strip from 1948-1967, but not of the fact that the al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock were slated for demolition, which was stopped by Moshe Dayan.

 

I do think, however, that Israel needs to cede West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, as well as al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock to the Palestinians, for their own survival, as well as that of the Palestinians.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

To each their own, mmghosh, but I disagree. Here's why:

(#289983)

First of all, when one really looks at Jewish  history, they'll find that there's a necessity for a Jewish-majority nation-State of Israel, to normalize the Jews so that they'll be a bit more like everybody else and not constantly be martyred.  Also, unlike the Irish, the Italians, Polish, etc., the Jews were a minority in every country that they fled to the United States from who weren't wanted in any of those countries, so it's necessary to have a Jewish-majority state, in order to protect world Jewry from a repeat of the pogroms and ultimately another "final solution" that they suffered.  

 

The Palestinians, too, have a long history of oppression and exploitation, not only at the hands of Israel (whose harsh military occupation that they've been under for too long..i. e. 45 years), but at the hands of the Arab countries, who, for the first 40 years of Israel's existence, exploited the Palestinians as a political football to make war on the State of Israel, and have deliberately kept the Palestinians in squalid refugee camps, in refugee status, for precisely that reason..so they could exploit the Palestinians.  If the Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem are granted self-determination in the form of independence, sovereignity and nation-statehood alongside Israel (not in place of Israel as you're suggesting), then the Palestinians, too, will be protected against a repetition of their history of exploitation and oppression, and be normalized, as well.

 

Having said all of the above, I'm not only a big proponent of the 2-state solution for the decades-old I/P debacle, but also believe that Israel must pull its troops and Rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers out of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, stop the humiliatingly rought treatment of innocent Palestian civilians, and allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state in the above-mentioned territories.  Even if israel has to evacuate their settlers kicking and screaming,  out of those territories, it's something that must be done, for Israel's sake, as well as that of the Palestinians. 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Are you suggesting Jews in the USA could be subjected

(#289988)
mmghosh's picture

to a "final solution"?  It seems unlikely.  

 

I'm curious why either Jews or Palestinians, of all the minorities in the world should necessarily have their own majority state, simply because they cannot get along.  There are many oppressed religious and cultural minorities in the world who do not have their own exclusive state - the Kurds or the Sikhs or the Bahais or the Ahmaddiyas for example.  The 2-state solution you propose is unlikely because of the military asymmetry of the two states concerned.

 

I do not think that apartheid is a good long term solution for conflicting ethnicites, however attrative or necessary it might seem in the short-term.  In our own ways, both our countries demonstrate that is indeed possible for different cultures and religions to live together as a nation, with common goals.

Aha....but you never know, mmghosh.

(#289991)

The destruction of israel could and undoubtedly would result in a horrific blow-back for world Jewry, including the United States.  

 

Also, the one-state solution would not work for Israeli jews and Palestinians, because there'd be constant bloodshed in the form of civil war.  

 

Ever heard the expression  "Good fences make good neighbors"?  That, imo, applies here...quite well.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"constant bloodshed in the form of civil war"

(#289993)
mmghosh's picture

its their problem, if they wish to slaughter each other.

 

I'm not sure why you equate the creation of a single secular, democratic state, guaranteeing freedom of religion, and non-discrimination on the basis of religion with the "destruction of Israel", "horrific blow-back" etc.  What about the USA, where Palestinians and Jews manage to live together in harmony? 

Again, I disagree with you, mmghosh.

(#290002)

Given the whole history of the region, with its bloody conflict between Israel, the Palestinians and a number of the surrounding Arab countries over religious and cultural differences, as well as over land and territory, the two-state solution is the only safe, sane and sensible solution to the whole debacle.  Most of the rest of the world believes that.  Also, it's not necessarily and always true that people of different racial, ethnic groups, religions and different colors manage to live in harmony, if the whole history of the United States indicates.

 

Also, the comparison between the United States and Israel is ridiculous, and doesn't even begin to hold water.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I cannot agree with you. Arabs and Jews have lived together

(#290005)
mmghosh's picture

peacefully in the Middle East for many centuries. The anti-Jewish pogroms were conducted mainly in Christian countries.  One should not project the European problem with the presence of Jews onto the Arab population of the Middle East.  

 

The Palestinian conflict is relatively recent. Your point is true that the 2-state solution is being pushed by various elements.  That doesn't necessarily make it correct.  As for comparisons, it is the Israelis who pride themselves on being a Western-style democracy surrounded by benighted Oriental despotisms. 

 

And, btw, most of the world (South and Central America, most of Asia and large swathes of Africa) is not really bothered about the conflict, one way or the other.

The vast majority of Jews in Europe, the Americas and Israel

(#290007)

The vast majority of Jews in Europe, Israel and the Americas support a 2-state solution, as do most Palestinians, mmghosh.

 

The Jews and the Arabs may have lived an uneasy peace, but when the Christians came, already existing conflict got worse.  There was no love lost between the Jews and Arabs, really.

 

I stand by my position that the two-state solution is the best way to go.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Oh you meant most of the Jewish world

(#290076)
mmghosh's picture

my apologies, I thought you meant the most of the world.  

 

That aside, as Israel is a sovereign country, I'm not sure why the opinions of Jews who are residents of another country should matter on this issue.

 

I do not share your optimism that most Israeli Jews support a 2-state solution.  From what I can see, it seems the Israelis wish to perpetuate their annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem.  That they cannot do so completely seems to be more a matter of demographics - it is technically hard to expropriate several millions of Palestinians.  As for Palestinians, I expect most refugees would simply want to return to their homes which happen to now lie in Israel.

 

The 2-state solution is being forced down both of their unwilling throats.  And in fact, given the military asymmetry, it is hard to see Israel backing down, or losing.  My hunch is that, for better or for worse, Israel will simply carry on building settlements and occupying more and more Palestinian land, thereby making Jerusalem and the West Bank de facto part of Israel.  My point is that this unified country of Israel should simply rescind their apartheid and discriminatory laws, so that their Arab citizens, Muslim and Christian can live in freedom, like the rest of the Jewish people.

Most of the world...period, supports the 2-state solution.

(#290127)

Most of the world...period...supports the 2-state solution, mmghosh, but the opinion of Jews worldwide, including the United States and Canada really does matter, believe it or not.  On the contrary, most Israeli Jews do support the 2-state solution and are not at all happy with their government's occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, with the continued building of settlements.  If Palestinian refugees get the Right of Return, it should be to the new independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state.  Israel should pull their troops out of the above-mentioned territories, evacuate their Rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers, and either dismantle the settlement buildings or hand them over to the Palestinians to do whatever they want with them.  

 

The International community does not recognize Israel's occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem or the building of settlements on those lands because both the Occupation and Israel's building of settlements on the above-mentioned territories are in violation of international law.  Israel must pull back to the internationally-recognized pre-1967 borders, evacuate their Jewish settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and either dismantle the settlements or hand them over to the Palestinians...period!  This is very important for Israel's survival, as well as that of the Palestinians.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I believe there is the American expression "get real"

(#290128)
mmghosh's picture

that applies here.

 

Your points are entirely hypothetical.  In every election in Israel in the past 10 years, the electoral majority has been with the party that supports increasing

West Bank settlements, in fact retroactively legalising previously illegal settlements.  The Prime Minister of Israel is the pro-settlement hawk Binyamin Netanyahu.

 

What Jews in the rest of the world want seems pretty irrelevant to Israelis - and I'd like to see evidence that the majority of the world's Jews does indeed wish Israel to give up its settlement policy.

 

As for your wish list of what Israel should or should not do, it is pretty hard to argue this with a nuclear-capable

state.  Who exactly is going to militarily enforce Israel's pullback from the Occupied Territories?  The US? NATO? The two major procedures for making nations conform to international law are (1) sanctions and (2) military invasion.  Neither is possible at the moment with Israel.

 

Finally, the rest of the world, at least as far as I know it (the non-Muslim part anyway) are completely uninterested in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Why should they be?  Its not like its particularly interesting.

Most European Jews and many Israeli and American Jews

(#290141)

are in favor of the 2-state solution, with  Jerusalem as a shared capitol between them, and take issue with the Israeli Government's policies of occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, with the building of settlements, demolition of Palestinian's homes, and the  harassment, general humiliating and degrading of innocent Palestinian civilians, not only by the Israeli military, by by the Rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers in those above-mentioned territories, as well.  

 

If one does enough research on the Israeli Jewish Public opinion, they'll find that most Israeli Jews want a genuine peace with their Arab neighbors and are willing to give up West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, as well as control of the airspace and water in those territories to achieve peace.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Give up control of Israel's airspace and water? Any cites?

(#290150)
mmghosh's picture

This assertion is not supported by evidence.  If you notice, not only does Israel not give up its own airspace, it reserves the right to invade the airspace of neighbouring countries, such as Iraq and Iran without warning or permission.  

 

Evidence?  In the Six Day War in 1967, Israel wiped out the air forces of the neighbouring Arab states without declaring war.  In fact the annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank happened as a result of a successful military campaign.  Why would Israel give these up without a military defeat?

 

I agree that some Israelis wish to live peacefully with the Palestinians.  Indeed, given that 20% of the population of Israel is Arabic, and they are a majority in North Israel, it would seem that this is essential. There is the matter of simple demographics.  By 2035, or latest by 2050, Israeli Arabs will be a simple majority in the country of Israel, when, given Israel's democratic Constitution, changes to the apartheid laws are inevitable.

I'm not talking about Israel's airspace and water, mmghosh.

(#290212)

I'm saying the Israel should give up control of the Palestinian Territories' airspace and water (meaning the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, which they must also cede to the Palestinians.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are under Israeli

(#290217)
mmghosh's picture

military occupation, hence expecting Israel to give up control of air and water is unrealistic in the extreme.  Jerusalem, especially, is a part of Israel according to the Basic Law of 1980 passed by the Knesset.

 

http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm

Jerusalem, Capital of Israel 

1. Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.

 

Seat of the President, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court 

2. Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court.

There is no legal precedent for Israel to hand over the West Bank or East Jerusalem to any other nation, except Jordan.  Before the Six-Day War in 1967, East Jerusalem and the West Bank were under the sovereignty of Jordan, not any Palestinian State.  Under the terms of the Peace Treaty of 1994, Jordan formally renounced all claims to the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israe...

The Parties agree mutually to recognise the rightful allocations of both of them in Jordan River and Yarmouk River waters and Araba/Arava ground water in accordance with the agreed acceptable principles, quantities and quality as set out in Annex II , which shall be fully respected and complied with.

---

It is agreed that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty, the international boundary between the two states consists of the following sectors:
The Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers
The Dead Sea
The Emek Ha'arva/Wadi Araba
The Gulf of Aqaba

The Israelis must cede nothing.  They can only be forced to do what you propose by military defeat, or by sanctions.  My question to you, again, is who is going to do this? 

Again, mmghnosh;

(#290290)

Jordan doesn't want anything to do with the Palestinians in the West Bank, especially since that country is full of Palestinians already, and they don't want to deal with any more of them.  I'm aware of the fact that the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem were under the rule of Egypt and Jordan from 1948-1967, but the UN Partition had really designated those above-mentioned territories for the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as a shared capitol between Israel and Palestine.  That didn't happen because the Arab countries at that time were quite obstructionist, and, unlike Israel, wouldn't accept the partition of the land in question.

 

I also think that had the United Nations, the United States and the International community had moved swiftly to enforce the 2-state solution,  there wouldn't be so much out-of-control, runaway behavior on the part of Israel, the settler movement that was part of the expropriation of designated Palestinian lands wouldn't happened, and there would've been two independent, sovereign nation-states;  the Jewish-majority nation-State of Israel, and the independent, sovereign nation-State of Palestine, alongside each other, with Jerusalem as the shared Capitol of the two states.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yes, we've noticed richer nations prefer to partition poorer

(#290294)
mmghosh's picture

nations, on the pretext that the denizens can't be kept from each other's throats.

Can't Imagine Why They Would Think That. . .

(#290298)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .given that the reaction of every Muslim nation around Israel to the UN partition plan was to attempt to annihilate Israel, albeit incompetently.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

I learned that Netanyahu's father was Jabotinsky's secretary.

(#290321)
mmghosh's picture

Bibi's political premises are much clearer.  

 

It is a pity.  A unitary non-racist, secular Israel even Palestine, should not have been undoable.

 

But fanatics like Jabotinsky and his groupies in charge of developing a State's ideology made it difficult, I suppose.  A reminder of his Iron Wall essay.

Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages.  I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want.  They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.

 

 

To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.

 

All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

 

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."

Some additional opinions, mmghnosn:

(#290328)

It's not surprising that Netanyahu's father was Jabotinsky's secretary, if that's really to be believed.

 

Secondly, the intifadah on the part of the Palestinians is happening because they want their sovereignity and the independence in the form of their own state.  The vast majority of Palestinians do. not want to be part of Israel, at all!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Just Excellent, Manish, I Recommend Everyone Read Link (1923)nt

(#290329)

Best Wishes, Traveller

It's not just a pretense, mmghosh.

(#290330)

This:

the denizens can't be kept from each other's throats.

 

is true!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Heh. I believe your motto is "a more perfect union".

(#290338)
mmghosh's picture

I'll prefer to trust in theories of state proposed by Mr Lincoln, or Mr Mandela or Mr King - they are more worthwhile than Mr Jabotinsky's - not so covert - apartheid.  

 

All the former (and there are other examples)  did not, and IMO correctly, believe in separation or secession as a solution to ethnic or cultural conflict, but rather in multi-ethnic societies.

 

The currently proposed 2-state formula for Palestine enshrines the principle of a state for a religious entity - an entirely retrograde, and illiberal view.

Again, I disagree with you, mmghosh.

(#290385)

This, imo:

 

The currently proposed 2-state formula for Palestine enshrines the principle of a state for a religious entity - an entirely retrograde, and illiberal view.

 

is a BS state, which is totally untrue.  The two-state solution has an important purpose; to protect two peoples (i. e. the Jews and Palestinians) who've suffered severe oppression and exploitation in the form of pograms, deportations, and "final solutions", as well as exploitation in the form of being exploited by the other Arab countries as a political football and kept in refugee camps for their purpose of making war on the nascent State of Israel, which they did for the first 40 years of Israel's existence.  The Palestinians need a state of their own to protect themselves against a repeat of this kind of exploitation and oppression by the Arab countries, who, btw, have no more sympathy for the Palestinians than most Israeli Jews do.  The Jews need a country where they're a majority (however small it may be), in order to normalize them, and protect them against a repeat of the history of pograms throughout the world that lead to the "final solution", albeit the holocaust.

 

I also might add, mmghosh, that the comparisons between other examples throughout the world, such as Mandela and Martin Luther King who proposed multiethnic societies for their societies only (i. e. South Africa and the United States.)

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

"The Jews need a country where they're a majority". Nonsense.

(#290429)
mmghosh's picture

No religious entity "needs" a country.  

 

There are plenty of religious groups in the world who have been exploited, persecuted and massacred at regular intervals - the Sikhs, the Kurds, the Roma and so forth - what is particularly special about Jews that they should "need" their own country? 

It's Not A Religion

(#290445)

It's an ethnic group.

 

You need to be born into it. Conversions are rare, not sought, and not even accepted by orthodox Jews. Also, there are atheist Jews, many well-known. You don't need to be religious to emigrate to Israel. All you need are Jewish parents.

 

And your examples are not very good. The Kurds want their own country, for example. That they haven't gotten it yet is another problem. But they sure do want it.

 

You are very, very far from understanding this problem, from the comfort of living in a country that belongs to your ethnicity, I might add.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

It's both

(#290449)
HankP's picture

and yes they accept conversions. It's not quite as simple as you're making it out here.

I blame it all on the Internet

There are many instances of individuals converting to Judaism

(#290478)
mmghosh's picture

groups too - in fact the Turkish Khazar nation converted to Judaism, or at least the majority of the nobility did, well before the 10th century.  In the last century, an obscure Tibeto-Burman tribe, not too far from where I live, managed to convert wholesale to Judaism.

 

But these are digressions.  Where I live is not, as you seem to think, a country that belongs to my ethnicity, but has a multiplicity of religions (over 18 major religions, not counting sects), ethnic groups (over 800) with 26 official languages, over 500 dialects and 18 separate, official scripts. And there are many much smaller political entities - New Guinea for example which have an even higher range of diversity - in languages, for example.

 

The USA is a good example of a country where the nature of the state is not founded upon professing a religion.  As I mentioned above, Jews and Palestinian Arabs live perfect harmony in the USA, so to suggest that they are culturally unable to do so in Palestine is not founded on fact.  Of course there are a large number (even a majority, perhaps) of modern political entities can and are based on historic ethnicities, even races and religions. But Israel was set up as a new, modern, even exemplary liberal state.  It has a vibrant, lively democracy.  It should have done better.

 
 

At least he aknowledges

(#290520)

their existence. What really makes me tear my hair out is the "Land without people for a people without land" propaganda nonesense.

Israel is not the United States & the USA is not Israel.

(#290532)

The United States is a totally different country from Israel altogether, first of all.  Secondly, there are countries with Catholic majorities, Protestant majorities (i. e. the United States, despite its diverse mixture of denominations, races, colors and ethnicities and origins), and there are countries with Muslim majorities, including the Arab countries that surround Israel.  Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority, and the Israeli Jews, too, come from various parts of the world;  Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and even the South American countries.  So, if all the other countries in the world have a certain religion as a majority, why shouldn't Israel have a Jewish majority population?  They're just as entitled, especially because the Jews were an unwanted minority in all the countries from which they fled.  Yet, I also acknowledge that the Palestinians also need an independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state, and the Palestinians should get one.  Moreover, it's up the the USA, the UN and the International community to see that this happens.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Majorities shouldn't matter.

(#290535)

Countries, particularly modern Western countries, should be equally accommodating to all religions and ethnic groups, much as the United States is striving to me. 

 

Now, granted, most countries & cultures in the world are highly ethnocentric, making an inclusive attitude towards minority populations difficult to impossible. God knows the Eastern Med. is one such place.

 

But that is a BAD THING. A VERY BAD THING. 

 

The philosophy you're embracing here, where every ethnic group or religious population on earth should have its own "homeland," in the long run only reinforces what is bad about the human tendency towards ethnocentrism and exclusiveness.

 

People should aspire to live together, work together, govern together. Not to withdraw themselves into ever tinier enclaves of religio-ethnic purity.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Again, I disagree with you, Jordan.

(#290542)

Most Israelis are secular (non-religious) Jews from various parts of the world (80% of Israel's population is Jewish), while roughly 20% of Israel's population is non-Jewish (i. e. Arab and Christian).  So, Jordan, whether you see that or not, Israel still has a Jewish majority, which isn't so terrible.  Here's a suggestion, Jordan;  You might want to bone up on your history, do some research on Jewish history, and you'd see why the majority of Jews worldwide, as well as non-Jews, firmly believe that a State of Israel with a Jewish majority should and must continue to endure and exist.

 

It's one thing to take the Israeli Government to task for its policies towards the Palestinians in West Bank, Gaza Strip and East jerusalem.  In fact, the majority of the people who do criticize the Israeli government's policies are concerned about Israel's welfare and well-being and want Israel to continue to exist, but it's clear that some people (wink wink) really want Israel not to exist, which I believe, is wrong.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What does research on Jewish history have to do with Israel

(#290546)
mmghosh's picture

as an State promoting apartheid?  

 

No one on this forum is arguing about Israel's right to exist.  Israel exists because of a UN Resolution and military victories.  

 

We are talking about its existence as a Jewish state, where certain rights and advantages accrue to a segment of the population by virtue of adherence to a religion, rather than as citizens.

 

Why would the giving of equal rights and opportunities to all citizens within its borders be regarded as a death-knell for a State?  Most modern states manage to do this without too much fuss.

Exactly, although both Manish and I are talking about

(#290548)

promoting an ideal (Israel as a safe, secure multi-ethnic unified state), that may not be achievable in the short term.

 

That's why the short term solution - a two-state solution - has been embraced as the most practical option. But it is a BAD option long term, inasfar as it promotes distinct political identities based on religion & ethnicity, rather than promoting multi-ethnic cooperation.

 

There are a lot of reasons why the goal of a bi-ethnic Israel is out of reach at this point in history. But none of those reasons include the principle that every ethnic group should have its own country.

 

I'm basically disagreeing with MaPol's suggestion that ethnocentric states are desirable in and of themselves. I don't believe they are, especially not in the modern world.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Almost every ethnic group does have its own country, Jordan.

(#290649)

The 2-state solution, imho, should be the long-term, permanent solution.  Irish-Americans have Ireland to fall back on.  Italian-Americans have Italy, the Greek-Americans have Greece, and so on.  Before the State of Israel existed, the Jews didn't have a country to fall back on.  Now they do. Moreover, the Palestinians also need their own independent, sovereign nation-state as a means of protection, support, self-determination and normalization, to protect them against a repeat of exploitation and oppression of not only Israel, but the surrounding Arab States as well.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Essentially a racist theory of sovereignty,

(#290665)

and while many people in the world agree with it, I don't. It's necessary for practical reasons (i.e. because most people in the world today are ethnocentric/racist), but it also reinforces endemic racist attitudes. For example, the casual and pervasive racism you find throughout Europe today. The only way to move beyond ethnocentrism as a principle of sovereignty & government is to form multi-ethnic nations.

 

Also, you are wrong on the facts:

Irish-Americans have Ireland to fall back on. Italian-Americans have Italy, the Greek-Americans have Greece, and so on.

This is incorrect. So far as I know, none of the European countries have repatriation laws anywhere near as generous as Israel's. Euro states generally require citizenship of a parent or grandparent, with perhaps some leniency for people who can prove ethnic ancestry without citizenship. See the difference? Israel's law of return requires the state to grant citizenship and assist in the immigration of ethnic Jews, whether or not they or any of their ancestors were ever citizens of the state of Israel. 

 

Compare to Italy. Italy became a state in 1861, so anyone with Italian descent whose parents emigrated from one of the republics, dukedoms or kingdoms of Italy a generation or more before that time is out of luck. Also, Italian citizenship before 1948 passed only through the male line. There are millions of Italian-Americans whose grandparents or great-grandparents came over in the great migrations of the late 19th century, but their descent was through a maternal line. Italy might make it somewhat easier for people with last names like DeMatteo or Albertini and no provable connection to an Italian citizen to naturalize, but its laws don't require it to do so.

 

States whose citizenship laws are more similar to Israel's (i.e. ethnic descent is accepted in place of citizenship descent): Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Estonia, Russia. None have laws as extensive as Israel's.

M Aurelius was probably right.

If a pogroms happen in Europe/America, you think that Israel

(#290749)
mmghosh's picture

will act as a fall-back option for the Jews to retire to, do you?  This is fantasy world.  If public opinion in Europe and America goes against Jews, Israel is not likely to stay afloat.

 

The converse is much more likely, if Egypt recovers the military nous and firepower that it possessed in the 14th century and Israel does indeed cease to exist that Israelis are much more likely to emigrate to the USA.

 

Anyway, this is extreme fantasy.  Israel is a nuclear-armed state and such things do not happen to nuclear armed states.  Also, the numbers of Jews outside Israel is an order of magnitude larger than the number of Jews within Israel itself. There is no practical possibility of Israel accommodating this vast number within its current borders.

 

In factual contradiction to your hypothetical situation, in recent years when Jews are in fact persecuted and have an option to emigrate, as happened in Russia in the 1970s and 80s and 90s, they do so to the USA and Europe as well as to Israel.  There was considerable controversy in Israel when pork-eating Russian Jews immigrated to Israel in large numbers from that period.

 

I have no problem with Israel acting as a country for Jews to emigrate to, btw.

Really??

(#290860)

From what you're saying, mmghosh,  this:

I have no problem with Israel acting as a country for Jews to emigrate to, btw

 

is a rather radical departure from what you've been saying all along.  I still disagree with you on the 2-state solution, which I think is necessary.  

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You don't find an apartheid state to be bothersome, whereas I do

(#290922)
mmghosh's picture

so I don't think we can usefully carry on this discussion.

 

On the point of Jews immigrating to Israel, I have no problems with any one emigrating to and immigrating anywhere.  The movement of labour should be as free as the movement of capital.

I take issue with the notion that Israel is an apartheid state.

(#291446)

I do, however, agree that, if Israel doesn't withdraw its troops and rightwing Jewish settlers from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem now, that there's the potential for Israel becoming an apartheid state, due to the extremely high birthrate of the Palestinian Arabs residing in those areas.   

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Anti-Jewish sentiment worldwide is the reason for Israel's being

(#290916)

Again, we're clearly at loggerheads here, mmghosh.  Worldwide anti-Jewish sentiment, which ultimately became virulent enough to lead to the Inquisitions, the pogroms in Europe, including Russia, and, ultimately, the "final solution",   particularly in Europe, but also different degrees of persecution here in the the United States and elsewhere, is precisely the reason that the State of Israel came into being, and has to stay in existence.  Israel is not like most countries, including the United States and/or the European/Asian/African countries.  Because of Jewish history, the Jews need a country of their own.  So do the Palestinians, for that matter, especially because the Palestinians need their own independent, sovereign nation-state as a means of protection against further oppression and exploitation, plus the Palestinians  are also very ethnically self-conscious and frequently marry among themselves.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Because, if one really looks at Jewish history, they'll see

(#290648)

Because, if one really looks at Jewish history, they'll understand why the State of Israel must exist and endure.  Israel came into existence for a reason;  The pograms and inquisition(s) against Jews worldwide that ultimately led to the Holocaust.  There was no Israel back then when the Holocaust occurred, which is why the Jews got exterminated in the gas chambers and ovens, etc.  Had there been the State of Israel back in 1947-1948, many more Jews would've been saved from pograms and extinction through the Holocaust.  

 

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I think you're wrong, mmghosh.

(#290470)

This:

 

 

 

No religious entity "needs" a country.  

 

There are plenty of religious groups in the world who have been exploited, persecuted and massacred at regular intervals - the Sikhs, the Kurds, the Roma and so forth - what is particularly special about Jews that they should "need" their own country? 

 

 

 

imho, totally underscores your lack of understanding of history.  You might want to bone up on your history a little bit.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I think that a manslaugher or 2nd-degree murder conviction

(#289987)

I think that either a man-slaughter or 2nd-degree murder conviction for the soldiers who ran Rachel Corrie over with a bulldozer and killed her would've been a good enough conviction for them, given the fact that, while the bulldozing of Rachel may not have been entirely intentional, it was definitely not an accident, either.  Rachel Corrie's parents and sister were looking for some accountability from the State of Israel, when they decided to sue the State of Israel, the Israeli Military and the Israeli Defense Ministry for the wrongful death of Rachel,  and they were right to do so.  The Corries wouldn't have gotten everything they wanted with a man-slaughter or 2nd-degree murder conviction for the soldiers who fatally mowed down Rachel, but they would've gotten something and not  come away empty-handed.  I think, though I'm  not altogether sure, that Rachel Corrie's family plans to appeal the ruling through the Israeli Supreme Court.

 

While Israel is definitely accountable for Rachel's death, so is the United States and the West, generally, for their complicity in Israel's occupation of West Bank, Gaza Striip and East Jerusalem, which created the circumstances that led up to Rachel Corrie's death, not to mention the untold numbers of other grisly casualties on both sides (i. e. Israeli and Arab) to begin with.  I also believe that the leadership of the International Solidarity Movement should be held acountable for Rachel Corrie's death.  They should not be putting people in that kind of peril to begin with.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Palestinian East Jersusalem...a Video

(#289819)

Best Wishes, Traveller

I saw the video, Traveller.

(#289985)

It's interesting.  Thanks for posting and sharing it with us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You Posted An Earlier Version Of This In August 2009

(#289820)
M Scott Eiland's picture

Here. The formatting glitch problems we've been having with older diaries make it very hard to read--and the trial that took place since then makes the new one more comprehensive--but there were some good comments in the first version that you and the commenters could refer back to if you want to build on the earlier discussion.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

From Aqaba to Jerusalem, a Drive (Video)

(#289822)

Start at 6:30 for the Occupation towers

Traveller

Couldn't find the Palestinian Prision Video I Wanted, Sorry...nt

(#289824)

Traveller

Thanks for the videos just the same, Traveller.

(#289909)

They were interesting, anyway.  

 

Back to the subject at hand, regarding Rachel Corrie's death, I recently read a more revealing response by Rachel Corrie's mother when she said about Rachel's having stood between an Israel soldier-operated Caterpillar bulldozer and Dr. Samir Nasrallah's house  "No, I don't think Rachel should've moved.  Her friends should've stood with her."

 

That, imo, indicates that the ISM made some strategical and tactical mistakes that also contributed to the loss of Rachel's life;  not helping to protect Rachel a little better by operating in a larger arena.  The fact that several ISM members, including the late Ms. Corrie herself, had some narrow escapes with the bulldozers while standing singlely between bulldozers and Palestinians' homes slated for demolition should've been a wake-up call for the International Solidarity Movement's leadership to alter their strategies and not put people in that kind of danger.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A problem with ISM

(#289934)
Bird Dog's picture

While their mission is purportedly peaceful, their ultimate aim is a one-state solution, with that one state not being Israel.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Ha

(#289940)
HankP's picture

yes, protesting against Israel stealing Palestinian land will lead to the elimination of Israel. Too funny.

I blame it all on the Internet

You don't get it

(#290043)
Bird Dog's picture

ISM considers all of Israel to be Palestinian land, therefore Israel stole all of it.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Citation needed nt

(#290063)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

Look it up yourself

(#290089)
Bird Dog's picture

nt

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

So you got nothing nt

(#290097)
HankP's picture

.

I blame it all on the Internet

False

(#290129)
Bird Dog's picture

I'm telling you to look it up yourself. I owe you nothing.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

You made an assertion

(#290516)
HankP's picture

you apparently aren't willing to justify it as more than a personal opinion. Which it is. And it's also incorrect.

I blame it all on the Internet

Fascinating

(#290554)
Bird Dog's picture

Harry Reid made an assertion, too, offering not a shred of evidence, yet you defended him. A word comes to mind: Hypocritical.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Going further

(#290572)
Bird Dog's picture

I just finished a diary with dozens of links to support the facts and my opinions. Think about it this way. If I don't provide a link, does not mean that what I say is unsupported. Given the bad faith commenting history, I owe you nothing, but to demonstrate that I have higher standards than Reid and yourself:

(1) Their website describes the current situation as "apartheid" (a slander, BTW), which implies that the problem is solved by eliminating this "apartheid" environment.

(2) They seek to defeat the Israeli army and "apartheid in Palestine". This is not the language of an organization the seeks peaceful coexistence between a Palestinian and Israeli state.

(3) By association, ISM workers gave direct support to Hamas, an organization whose charter calls for the elimination of Israel. Another example here. These is not the only cases of ISM and its people giving support to Hamas and other jihadist groups.

(4) Its media coordinator stated that "'Israel' is an illegal entity that should not exist" (link).

(5) This is cut-and-pasted from the Jerusalem Post:

At a May 6 press conference I asked ISM spokesman Raphael Cohen how his group defines the "occupation." His definition? "The Zionist presence in Palestine" that is, in all of the country including Israel within its pre-1967 borders. 

 

Cohen went on to say that the ISM view of peace would be a "one-state solution," or no Israel at all.

 

ISM spokesperson Huwaida Arraf confirmed that ISM supports the Palestinian "right of return," which is tantamount to calling for the end of the Jewish state.

(6) Its co-founders support violent acts against Israel, though ISM does not engage in same, and stated that those who in died in their protests were "no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation". I'm pretty sure that Palestinian suicide bombers have no interest in a two-state solution.

(7) And here's something from their website, without critique or criticism from ISM:

ISM: Is the State of Palestine stamp referring to one state or is it an endorsement of the two state solution?

 

Jarrar: It is for a one state solution.  It is a demonstration against occupation and against the partition of Palestine.  I am really against the two state solution.  We need to remove hate, partition and division because this is what our politicians and Israeli politicians want, so they can control us.  If we have one state, the people will rule the state.

ISM: So you don’t support the Palestinian Authority’s bid at the UN for Palestinian statehood?

 

Jarrar: I’m not with this.  The United Nations are the ones that partitioned Palestinein 1947 – why go to the one who is hitting you to ask for his mercy?

(8) And there's this:

When one of the trainees asked if we as ISM volunteers favored a two-state solution to secure peace, Brian Malovany, another senior trainer from Oakland who had just joined us explained, “The idea of a two-state solution is pretty much dead.”

 

“There can only be one state called Palestine,” explained Molvany. "And the Right of Return is non-negotiable. If people ask you about a two-state solution just tell them it’s a human rights issue."

 

They keep their one-state beliefs fairly vague and quiet, but it's there if you bother to try.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

I don't see a justification for your statement

(#290656)
HankP's picture

that ISM thinks the land was stolen by Israel. They call the present condition apartheid (which it is, Palestinians in occupied land have no rights that are honored by the State of Israel) and that they advocate for a single state solution. I don't see any evidence that supports your statement. On the right it's become standard rhetoric to demonize anyone that doesn't agree with Israel, but that of course is a fallacy.

I blame it all on the Internet

We agree, then

(#290712)
Bird Dog's picture

ISM supports a one-state solution, just like I said. Since they advocate a full right of return, they're basically in favor of the end of the Israeli state.

 

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

The "basically" in your sentence does a lot of work

(#290718)
HankP's picture

and is a leap of faith that I don't agree with. Allowing Arabs back doesn't end the Israeli state. It may cause problems for some political parties, but that's not the end of a state.

I blame it all on the Internet

I disagree, HankP.

(#290742)

This:

 

Allowing Arabs back doesn't end the Israeli state. It may cause problems for some political parties, but that's not the end of a state.

 

 

 

is something that I definitely take issue with, HankP.  

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I've got a simple question

(#290728)
stinerman's picture

Is there any particular reason why Jewish folks that live in that area of the world have a right to have a country all to themselves?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

I get that they currently have control of the country called Israel and they'd like it to be a majority Jewish state...and they certainly have that right, but over and above the fact that they can exclude other ethnic/religious groups, is it a good thing that they do?  Is it ok if Christians, Muslims, or even Atheists get their own country?

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

A full right of return isn't required

(#290733)

to end the current Israeli state.

 

All that would be needed is full Israeli citizenship rights for all non Israeli's currently living in Israel and the occupied territories, existing disparate birthrates and a little time.

"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias

It is apartheid.

(#290660)

Palestinians live with no absolute rights in an ever shrinking bantustan. 

The only way to really give the Palestinians rights

(#290861)

is for the USA, the UN and the International Community to force Israel to withdraw their troops and evacuate their rightwing Jewish settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, stop the demolition of Palestinians' homes and humiliating treatment of Palestinian civilians, and to allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign natio-state where they, too, have self determination, can control their own destinies, run their own lives and be citizens.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

If so, of their own choice

(#290864)
Bird Dog's picture

One, they had multiple chances at statehood. Two, their leadership has the ability to lessen the infringement on their rights.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Thw only real choice they have

(#291028)

is to cooperate with or resist the slow appropriation of their land and the strangulation of their nation. Of course pre resistance they were a market for and a source of cheap labour for Israel. None the less during this time the settlements continued to expand and they lost water rights.

 

Post intefada we can see perfectly the difference between cooperation with Israel and resistance to it. In Gaza they have resisted. Settlemends no longer expand, indeed many were shut. On the other hand their infrastructure has been destroyed, industry, agriculture and fishing crippled. A population that is mostly minor lives in soe of the worst conditions in the world today. In the west bank they have cooperated. They live under less duress with slightly more freedom of movement and better infrastructure, but the settlements continue to expand pushing an growing Palestinian population into an ever shrinking patch of land. They have been walled in (or through in many places). They are subject to continuous and arbitrary harassment by the Israeli military.

 

The one constant through all of this, be it in times of peace, relative calm, conflict, whether talks be starting, collapsing, continuing, from left wing to right wing Israeli government, regardless of the colour of the administration the the Whitehouse; the settlements continue to expand.

 

They have certainly never been offered anything like a viable state. Decade long negotiations have been used to whittle and nickle and dime away the Palestinian position to the point where not even Arafat, with all he had invested in this, could continue. Arafat who had been helicoptered in by the Israelis, with the rest of his Tunis mafia, to play sock puppet opposition to them. 

 

But all of this is more or less innevitable. It is politically impossible for Israel to stand up a Palestinian state. The Zionist/Settler parties hold too much sway and those same factions have made sure that facts on the ground make it more or less impossible logistically to do it by driving themselves as deeply as possible into the body of the proto Palestinian state. Perhaps 20 years ago if pressure had been brought to bear externally a 2 state solution might have been possible. I doubt it can be achieved now. A single state is the logical fix to the mess that is the west bank. That's bad for Israel but they have their own right wingto thank for it. They played a high stakes game. The result still hangs in the balance but I doubt a 2 state solution of any meaningful type will be the result.

From other posts you've made recently

(#291187)

I think we pretty much agree on al of this except as to whether there has been a good faith peace effort from the Israelis, or whether there has ever been a viable peace offer.

Settlements aren't the only issue

(#292547)
Bird Dog's picture

If it were, then the Palestinians would support a two-state solution, which would give them sovereignty over the land they would have. The problem is that they haven't negotiated swaps with any seriousness, and settlements aren't just going to go away in the West Bank. The last real attempt on real estate negotiations was in 2000 when Arafat was in charge, and he refused to make a single counteroffer. Instead, he chose intifada.

Also, when you're talking about "resistance" to Israel, you're talking about violence. That has been the real constant, from the very inception of the Israeli nation. I'm failing to see how that has well served the Palestinians. The real problem is that Palestinians--and Arabs in general--refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. If they can get past that, then maybe there are prospects for an accord. But as it is, Hamas is steadfast. Abbas may be more amenable, but the people who voted him into power less so.

The point I'm making is that the Palestinian leadership has it in them to grant its people the free exercise of their rights (religious, speech, press, property), but Hamas, Fatah et al aren't interested in that. Even if the PA and Hamas do not have full sovereignty over their territories, does not mean they are unable to allow their people to have those rights. Israel has nothing to do with that aspect. Also, the Palestinians who are refugees in other nations have little to no rights since they've been refused citizenship (Jordan is a partial exception). The Arab League's official position is to deny Palestinians citizenship rights in other Arab nations.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Nobody has agree with all that the ISM stands for and says.

(#290126)

If the ISM is the proponent of a one-state solution, I'm not buying it.

 

if, however, they're just interested in seeing Israel pull its troops and evacuate their rightwing Jewish settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, stop the rough treatment of innocent Palestinians, the humiliating checkpoints and the bulldozing of Palestinians' homes and other properties of theirs, and injuring/killing internationals,   that's something I'm in total agreement with.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

not relevant to what ISM does

(#290480)

The number of states in a solution is not relevant to what ISM does.

 

What is relevant, and nobody has bothered to address is WHY ISM is there. Answer, quite simply, is that the USA vetoed the sending of UN monitors to Israel. The same country that gets outraged over other nations vetoing monitor access to Syria.

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

The ISM is there for the following reasons:

(#290515)

A)  To act as a buffer between Palestinian civilians and Israeli soldiers/rightwing Israeli Jewish settlers, and to enable the Palestinian civilians to go about their daily lives and businesses without being harassed and abused, injured and killed by soldiers and Israeli settlers.

 

B) To protect Palestinians' homes and other properties from being bulldozed by the Israeli military.

 

C)  To document the human rights abuses by Israeli soldiers/rightwing Israeli Jewish soldiers against the Palestinian civilians that regularly go on in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and relay the information back to their own respective countries so that their governments will be aware of what goes on in the Israeli-occupied territories.

 

I did not put this forum off of the original topic.  Several other people have managed to turn this thread into an argument about solutions, and went way off the subject.  That's why the reasons that the ISM  maintains a presence in the Israeli-occupied territories was never addressed.  Well, I just did address the reasons for the ISM's presence in those territories, and I'm glad I did.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You just told us what ISM is

(#290541)

You just told us what ISM is doing, but they wouldn't be there doing this if UN monitors were there, as they are in several places in the Middle East and around the world. The reason why there are no UN monitors there is because of the USA veto of the proposal.

 

When earlier you wrote:

"Since Israel hasn't done so on its own, and the Hamas leaders are also resistant to implementing the two-state solution on their own, it's now up to the International Community and the UN to step in and enforce it, because otherwise it'll never get done. "

what you are missing is that the International Community can't be expected to get past first base on this issue if the USA is vetoing even modest measures like sending in UN monitors.

 

 

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Hmmmmm....

(#289943)

 

While their mission is purportedly peaceful, their ultimate aim is a one-state solution, with that one state not being Israel.

Do you think so, Bird Dog?  Just curious, because most Israeli Jews, most Palestinians, and most American and European Jews, too, support the two-state solution.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'm for a two-state solution

(#290044)
Bird Dog's picture

Problem is, with Hamas in partial charge, I don't believe there are enough Palestinian leaders who favor it.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

I agree that the 2-state solution's the best way to go.

(#290078)

However, I think while Hamas isn't for it, I believe that the International community, at this point, should really step in, force Israel to evacuate its troops and settlers from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and to allow the Palestinians to create their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel in the above-mentioned territories.  Since Israel hasn't done so on its own, and the Hamas leaders are also resistant to implementing the two-state solution on their own, it's now up to the International Community and the UN to step in and enforce it, because otherwise it'll never get done.  

 

What's interesting, and rather eerie, is the fact that leaders throughout the world, are into their own agenda and out of touch with what the people really and truly want.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I am for a hybrid

(#290085)

A two state commonwealth with shared currency, airspace, external borders, and various other features. Also, right of return for original refugees and their direct descendants.

 

This makes sense to insure security and economic viability.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

A somewhat different outlook, M Aurelius:

(#290125)

I favor the 2-state solution, with Jerusalem as a shared Capitol between the State of Israel and the (nascent) State of Palestine;  Jewish West Jerusalem should be Israel's Capitol, and Arab East Jerusalem should be the Capitol of Palestine.  

 

Israel should not only cede Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but should also cede control of their waters and their airspace.  The fact is that the vast majority of Palestinians do not want to be part of Israel...at all, and they want and need self-determination in the form of their own independent, sovereign nation-state alongside Israel, and not in place of it the way lots of people want.  Also, the Palestinians have their own universities, so why shouldn't they have their own state, the way most of them want?  They should.

 

As for return of the refugees, the Palestinian refugees and their descendants should be encorporated into the new independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state.  That's the way to give the Palestinians and the Palestinian refugees their rights!

 

Israel can't absorb any Palestinians for obvious reasons, and the Arab countries don't want them to take them in.  Therefore, 2 independent sovereign nation-states alongside each other, with separate currencies, separate airspace, and borders is the only safe, sane and sensible solution for this decades-old debacle, and the only way for peace and security (economic and otherwise) to set in and be permanent and just for both peoples.  Two States for 2 peoples!.

 

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The only problem is...

(#290133)

...neither side finds the two state solution compelling enough. It has been around for 20 years or more, and nothing happens. The Israeli right simply does not want it.

 

Israel does not want the contorted borders that would result. In terms of airspace, the distances involved are so small it would be unmanageable to separate them while having any kind of security.

 

The Palestinians can't accept no right of return. The trick would be to let Palestinians return but as citizens of Palestine. This way, they would not vote in Israeli elections, so there is no demographic issue. This is the case in Europe. An EU citizen can work anywhere, but can vote only in the country of his nationality, not that of residence.

 

Both economies have historically been intertwined, though less so today. Still, this would be natural. What could the Palestinian economy do without trade to Israel? A common currency makes the most sense, along with free trade.

 

Two states, yes, but joined.

I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.

Again, I see things differently, M Aurelius.

(#290138)

The Palestinians don't want to be part of Israel, they want their independence, sovereignity and nation-statehood.  Israel must do its part by pulling back from West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem to its internationally-recognized pre-1967 borders and allow an independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state to emerge in those above-named territories, alongside Israel.

 

The trouble is that leaders throughout much of the world, including the USA and Israel, too, as well as the Palestinian leaders, are out of touch with the desires and hopes of their peoples.  I also might add, M Aurelius, that many Israeli soldiers, both young conscriptees, who're drafted right out of high school, and reservists, have been refusing to serve in West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, because they rightly feel that their government's policies are doing the State of Israel far more harm than good, regarding national security, and as a society and a people.  

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I stand by all I've said, M Aurelius.

(#290139)

In fact, most Israeli soldiers and civilians alike, regardless of their political pursuasion(s), advocate the 2-state solution and are not happy with the occupation of West Bank, Gaza Strip or East Jerusalem.  The Israelis taught the Palestinians how to farm and do all kinds of other stuff, and they're pretty resourceful, so they could run their own independent, sovereign nation-state quite well.  

 

The fact that their economies are less intertwined today makes for a perfect opportunity for an independent, sovereign Palestinian nation-state alongside Israel to be built.  The Palestinian refugees should be incorporated into the new Palestinian nation-state.  Israel is better off having a smaller area of land and not having to rule over and subjugate an angry Palestinian population.  

 

M Aurelius, I stand by all I've said.  The Israeli Right doesn't represent all of Israel...not by a longshot.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The actual text of the ruling...

(#290624)
Bird Dog's picture

...here. The judge's determinations.

a. During the relevant period of time, the "Philadelphi Corridor" was the site of daily warfare, i.e. daily gunfire by snipers, missile fire and IED explosions directed at the IDF forces. During this period, unceasing efforts were made to kidnap IDF soldiers. Only soldiers who were in combat units fought in the region.

 

According to the notes made in the IDF records, from September 2000 to the date of the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit (March 16, 2003), nearly 6,000 grenades had been thrown at IDF forces in the Corridor; there had been approximately 1,400 incidents of gunfire; and there were more than 40 occurrences of mortar fire. These aforementioned events led to the injury and death of many Israelis.

The United States government issued a travel warning on March 16, 2003 to warn American citizens against visiting the Gaza  Strip area or the West Bank.

b. During the period pertinent to this case, there was a military directive in force declaring the "Philadelphi Corridor" a "closed military area" and forbidding the entry of civilians.

c. The ISM assigned itself the task of working alongside the Palestinians against the "Israeli occupation" by using what it called "non-violent protest activities". However, the evidence presented to me shows a significant gap between the Organization's statements and the true character of its activities and actions. The actions taken by the members of the organization, in practice, do not match its statements. In fact, the Organization exploits the dialogue regarding human rights and morality to blur the severity of its actions, which are, in fact, expressed through violence.

 

Inter alia, ISM activities included "defending" Palestinian families, even ones that were engaged in terror activities. The Organization's activists "specialized" in sabotaging the IDF's operational actions. ISM activities included, inter alia: stationing activists to serve as "human shields" for terrorists wanted by Israeli security forces; financial, logistical and moral assistance to Palestinians, including terrorists and their families; interrupting demolition activities or the sealing off of houses belonging to terrorists who conducted suicide attacks with multiple casualties.

d. The mission of the IDF force on the day of the incident was solely to clear the ground. This clearing and leveling included leveling the ground and clearing it of brush in order to expose hiding places used by terrorists, who would sneak out from these areas and place explosive devices with the intent of harming IDF soldiers. There was an urgency to carrying out this mission so that IDF look-outs could observe the area and locate terrorists thereby preventing explosive devices from being buried. The mission did not include, in any way, the demolition of homes. The action conducted by the IDF forces was done at real risk to the lives of the soldiers. Less than one hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF forces

 

e. I hereby determine that, on the day of the incident, the two bulldozers and the armored personnel carrier were occupied with the clear military operational task of clearing the land in a dangerous area which posed a significant risk. The force's action was designed to prevent acts of terror and hostility, i.e. to eliminate the danger of terrorists hiding between the creases of land and in the brush, and to expose explosive devices hidden therein, both of which were intended to kill IDF soldiers. During each act of exposure, the lives of the IDF fighters were at risk from Palestinians terrorists. As aforementioned, less than an hour before the incident that is the focus of this lawsuit, a live hand-grenade was thrown at the IDF force.

For this reason, I hereby determine that the act of clearing the land with which the IDF force was occupied during the event was "a war-related action" as defined in The Civil Wrongs Ordinance.

 

f. On March 16, 2003, the decedent and her fellow ISM activists arrived at the location where the IDF force was working to clear the land. They did so, they claim, in order to prevent the IDF force from demolishing Palestinian houses. They did so illegally and in contradiction of the military directive declaring the area a "closed military area". They held signs, stood in front of the bulldozers and did not allow them to carry out their mission. The IDF soldiers informed the activists that they had to distance themselves from the area, threw stun grenades towards them, fired warning shots towards them and used methods to disperse demonstrations. All without avail.

The IDF force was very careful not to harm the Organization's activists. Because of the activists' interference, the force repeatedly relocated to continue carrying out their mission.

 

g. Based on the evidence presented to me, including the testimony of the expert for the prosecution, Mr. Osben, I hereby determine that at approximately 17:00, the decedent stood roughly 15 to 20 meters from the relevant bulldozer and knelt down. The bulldozer to which I refer was a large, clumsy and shielded vehicle of the DR9 model. The field of view the bulldozer's operator had inside the bulldozer was limited. At a certain point, the bulldozer turned and moved toward the decedent. The bulldozer pushed a tall pile of dirt. With regard to the field of view that the bulldozer's operator had, the decedent was in the "blind spot". The decedent was behind the bulldozer's blade and behind a pile of dirt and therefore the bulldozer's operator could not have seen her. The bulldozer moved very slowly, at a speed of one kilometer per hour.

When the decedent saw the pile of dirt moving towards her, she did not move, as any reasonable person would have. She began to climb the pile of dirt. Therefore, both because the pile of dirt continued to move as a result of the pushing of the bulldozer, and because the dirt was loose, the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt and fell.

At this stage, the decedent's legs were buried in the pile of dirt, and when her colleagues saw from where they stood that the decedent was trapped in the pile of dirt, they ran towards the bulldozer and gestured towards its operator and yelled at him to stop. By the time the bulldozer's operator and his commander noticed the decedent's colleagues and stopped the
bulldozer, a significant portion of the decedent's body was already covered in dirt.

 

The decedent's entire body was not covered in dirt. In fact, when the bulldozer backed up, the decedent's body was seen to free itself from the pile of dirt and the decedent was still alive.

The decedent was evacuated to the hospital and after 20 minutes, her death was declared.

 

I hereby determine unequivocally that there is no foundation to the plaintiffs' claim that the bulldozer struck the decedent intentionally.
This was a very unfortunate accident and was not intentional. No one wished to harm the decedent. I was convinced that the bulldozer's operator would not have continued to work if he had seen the decedent standing in front of the bulldozer, as he and his colleagues acted in similar circumstances earlier that day, when they moved from location to location because of the disturbances caused by the members of the Organization.

h. Because I find, as aforementioned, that the decedent was accidentally killed in the framework of a "war-related activity" as defined in The Civil Wrongs Ordinance, and in light of the instructions laid out in Article 5 of the aforementioned ordinance, the State bears no responsibility for the damages inflicted on the plaintiffs resulting from a war-related action.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula

Pfffftt. -nt-

(#290627)

.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Well, Of Course

(#290629)
M Scott Eiland's picture

[Rosie O' Donnell] BULLDOZER OPERATORS CAN SEE THROUGH STEEL AND DIRT!!! BULLDOZER OPERATORS CAN SEE THROUGH STEEL AND DIRT!!![/Rosie O' Donnell]

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Bulldozer operators, at least in this country,

(#290631)

assume that if they can't see under the wheels, someone is standing there. Kind of like how you assume a gun is loaded unless you can see clear through the breech, and for the same reason. But I think it's pretty neat how a judge can 100% exonerate somebody in a situation like that.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Fortunately. . .

(#290634)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .bulldozer operators in this country don't have to worry about operating in war zones. The judge did a rather excellent job of explaining why Rachel Corrie's death amounted to an elaborate slow motion suicide which, sadly, evil people (Hamas and their active allies) have used for propaganda purposes that many non-evil people have bought hook, line, and sinker.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Yeah, nah. They just squished her

(#290635)

because she was in the way. I've heard it's amazingly easy to avoid running over civilians with a machine that goes 1 km/h, even in a war zone. 

M Aurelius was probably right.

Yes, Because Non-Idiots Don't Climb Onto. . .

(#290636)
M Scott Eiland's picture

. . .a pile of shifting dirt in a blind spot when the driver is probably wondering if someone is about to shoot him. Wood chippers are nice and safe too, unless some idiot dives in.

The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.

Sure, whatever, but you'd never convince a

(#290639)

non-crooked jury.

 

A "war zone" by the way usually means you're paying more attention to where you're going, not less. It also means you have someone watching your back and spotting your front, radio communications, etc. In the absence of all of those things? Not so warlike.

M Aurelius was probably right.

Judge gave away the game

(#290637)

by defining attacks on uniformed soldiers in a war zone as "terrorism", a straight up lie.  If a judge is willing to make up stuff like that, the rest of his/her claimed facts have to be discounted heavily. 

 

Your definition of terrorism is at odds with that of the judge, I'm surprised you agree with it.

I didn't agree or disagree with the judge's use of...

(#290714)
Bird Dog's picture

..."terrorism", but now that you mention it, it's too expansive for my taste. If they're targeting IDF, they're not terrorists. If they're targeting IDF without regard to the civilians around them, they're terrorists. If their targets are indiscriminate or are pointed at civilians, they're terrorists.

From my Benghazi Problem link, there is a reference to Title 22 of the U.S. Code, defines terrorism as:

..."premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

Which also works for me.

My point in including the link is that a whole diary was written on the subject without a reference to the actual decision.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula