Settlements: An obstacle to peace?

[Phx_Dem]

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was just back in the Middle East for a fresh round of talks and trilateral meetings between Israelis and Palestinians to help cement an Israeli-Palestinian agreement before the end of 2008 as President Bush has outlined.

While Rice certainly understands what is going on, she has made mistakes in the past by pressuring Israel to make concessions that were not only non-beneficial but also completely detrimental to Israel's security. This week, Secretary Rice commented that, "I am very concerned that at a time when we need to build confidence between the parties, the continued building and settlement activity has the potential to harm the negotiations going forward."

While Secretary Rice made these comments partially to satisfy the Palestinians and partially because she really believes that settlement construction is a problem, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said, "The settlements are the main obstacle in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians." This comment needs clarification.

Israel's detractors often argue that Jewish settlements in the West Bank obstruct the peace process and cause unnecessary tension.

It is crucial to understand the background of the Arab-Israeli conflict to understand why settlements are not and cannot be an impediment to peace and is simply an excuse used by the Palestinians and their apologists.

More at:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3557361,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

1. I disagree...

I think that the settlements ARE an obstacle to peace. Not the only obstacle to peace. But definitely *an* obstacle to peace.

I think that the only way to a peaceful and fair (insofar as such things can ever be fair) solution is through two states: Israel and Palestine. And new settlements make such a solution more difficult. Not impossible, as settlements can be dismantled later on - but that is much more difficult and disruptive than not having them in the first place.

I do agree that some interpretations of Middle Eastern history are very simplistic and false - 'it's all those Israelis misbehaving and the Arabs would have been totally willing to make peace if the Israelis had behaved themselves'. However, I think that both sides need to be less concerned with who did what in the past, and more with how to move to a peaceful solution in the *present*.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I disagree as well...

The settlements definately are an obstacle to peace, and I'd say one of the major ones. There's a few major obstacles, imo:

Settlements
Checkpoints
Violence against Israeli civilians
The occupation itself
Violence against Palestinian civilians
The status of Jerusalem
Extremists on both sides


I do agree that some interpretations of Middle Eastern history are very simplistic and false - 'it's all those Israelis misbehaving and the Arabs would have been totally willing to make peace if the Israelis had behaved themselves'. However, I think that both sides need to be less concerned with who did what in the past, and more with how to move to a peaceful solution in the *present*.

Just as simplistic and false as the 'it's all those Arabs misbehaving and Israel would have been totally willing to make peace if the Arabs had behaved themselves' mindset. Both of those simplistic interpretations of history have gotten a heavy workout in this forum over the years and I doubt those who indulge in it are particularly interested in dropping all their who did what in the past stuff...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. Not a single reason is given why settlements are an "excuse."

Not one single reason.

Would any American or British or Australian poster here hand over half their property at the invitation of the UN?

I didn't think so.

I just love how that line of reasoning is used to show that Palestinians have always hated the Jews for no good reason.

[aranthus]

3. This isn't true.

The point of this story is that Arab hostility to Israel is THE obstacle to peace. Granted that it is the major obstacle, but that doesn't mean that it's the only one. Sure, if the Palestinians accept a deal where Israel keeps all of the settlements, there would be a deal, but that begs the question of why the Palestinians should accept it in the first place. Then there's the political message that continued construction sends; that Israel intends to continue to dominate the Palestinians. That's hardly conducive to negotiating peace.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. Can you look me in the eye (figuratively) and tell me you can't see a reason for hostility?

Cut me a break.

[aranthus]

5. Of course there are reasons. So what?

First of all, that doesn't mean that the hostility isn't an obstacle. We're not talking about simple dislike. The Russians didn't like the Germans after world War Two, but they didn't try to destroy their country. The Arabs have been hostile to Jewish national existence since before there was an Israel.

Which also means that the hostility has much less to do with what Israel has done than it has to do with what Israel is. I expect that after decades of war, that there will be hostility. In this case, though, it's the hostility that was the cause of the war in the first place. Having a reason isn't the same as having justification.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Here's the thing:

To you "Israel is" many things, most of which are likely lovely and positive. But to a Palestinian, Israel is: a colonizer, an occupier, an iron fist, a brutal unjust authority, a boot on the neck, etc.

Bottom line: while settlements were not the obstacle to peace in 1937, in 2008, the insatiable settlement drive clearly illustrates that the gov't of Israel is not ready to cease stealing more land, much less retreat to the Green Line and return what has been stolen.

[aranthus]

7. Some of this I agree with.

Except that there were no settlements in 1937. Of course Israel is seen by the Palestinians as an occupier and a boot on the neck. But why did they hate Israel before the occupation? They very clearly did, didn't they? The difference between us, is that while I recognize that the occupation is a source of hostility that has to be dealt with, I know that it isn't the only source. There was Arab hostility to Jewish national existence decades before there was an occupation. It's that hostility that caused the war that lead to the occupation in the first place. I believe that hostility is still there, and has been fed by the pain of decades of war and occupation.

Finally, you state that the continued construction of settlements sends a hostile message, which is what I believe I first posted. We agree on this.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. Do you think that the Arabs in Palestine in 1937 didn't see the writing on the wall?

Do you think they didn't understand the nature of the Zionist emterprise from the early part of the last century?

Of course there was hostility. Can you blame them?

The settlements are more than a "hostile message." They are the facts on the ground, around which a cantonized Palestinian nation will be cobbled.

[Dick Dastardly]

9. Are you talking about the vast majority of Arabs who were immigrants in 1937

or just the native Arabs or both of them.

What about the native Jews



The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II, while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000.13 In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.14


The Peel Commission reported in 1937 that the “shortfall of land is...due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.”10
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html


At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.

Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.

The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.



According to British statistics, more than 70% of the land in what would become Israel was not owned by Arab farmers, it belonged to the mandatory government. Those lands reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British. Nearly 9% of the land was owned by Jews and about 3% by Arabs who became citizens of Israel. That means only about 18% belonged to Arabs who left the country before and after the Arab invasion of Israel.6



http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html#e

[aranthus]

11. There wasn't any writing to be seen.

Your argument is like saying the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because they could see that the US was going to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It won't wash. The Jews did not come to Palestine with the idea of forcibly moving the Arabs. That idea came later when Arab hostility manifested itself. Do I blame them for their hostility? You bet.

[Dick Dastardly]

10. Israel is an occupier because of Palestinian and Arab hostilities against Israel

The bottom line is Palestinian and Arab actions have put them in the position they are in.


While I am not a supporter of the settlements, the fact is the land is disputed, not stolen, and Res 242 does not require Israel to leave all of the WB and Gaza.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yr opinions aren't *facts*

While I am not a supporter of the settlements, the fact is the land is disputed, not stolen, and Res 242 does not require Israel to leave all of the WB and Gaza.

What IS a fact is that the territory is OCCUPIED, not 'disputed'. 'Disputed' is a term embraced by the RW supporters of the settlements to try to make out that Israel has a genuine claim to the territory it occupies. The West Bank is no more 'disputed' than East Timor was when Indonesia occupied it...

Res 242 is very clear on the acquisition of territory by war. I've bolded it so you don't miss it:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/un242.htm

[Dick Dastardly]

14. Those are the opinions of the drafters of 242, not mine.

THE AUTHORS OF RESOLUTION 242:
"The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon , tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change...Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution but it was not a viable alternative to the UK text...Members voted and adopted the resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28).

Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' <1949/1967> Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).


Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State: "...The Egyptian model fits neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian case...Former Secretary of Defense McNamara has said that if he were the Israel's Minister of Defense, he would never agree to giving up the Golan Heights...UNSC 242 authorizes the parties to make whatever territorial changes the situation requires - it does not require the Israelis to transfer to the Arabs all, most, or indeed any of the occupied territories. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty awards more than 90 percent of the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War...<242> permits a transfer if the parties accept it, but it does not require it..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, pp 18-19).








This has been gone over before ad nauseaum as here. Tons of commentary from the drafters
See posts 63-77
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x206026

In the links on this post as well as the older thread I linked you will find exhaustive commentary from all the original drafters that support my position. I will post just a few snippets. I have much more supporting evidence and statements if you would like them but I think this post has more than enouh

What IS a fact is that the territory is OCCUPIED, not 'disputed'. 'Disputed' is a term embraced by the RW supporters of the settlements to try to make out that Israel has a genuine claim to the territory it occupies. The West Bank is no more 'disputed' than East Timor was when Indonesia occupied it...

False-Your opinion is not fact.
It is not RW who say it. The original drafters stated that Israel is not required to withdraw to the 67 line and that final borders are subject to negotiation.
See posts 63-77

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x206026

These articles by Eugene V. Rostow (Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs) will set the record straight. Rostow was one of the US officials involved in drafting 242 so he knows first hand what was and was not intended.
By Eugene W. Rostow
Copyright 1991 The New Republic Inc.
The New Republic, October 21, 1991
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal1.shtml

By Eugene W. Rostow
Copyright 1990 The New Republic Inc.
The New Republic, April 23, 1990
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/islegal2.shtml


Myth and Fact: Resolution 242
http://www.ujc.org/page.html?ArticleID=65012

Res 242 is very clear on the acquisition of territory by war. I've bolded it so you don't miss it:

The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security

The first point addressed by the resolution is the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war." Some people read 242 as though it ends here and the case for requiring a total Israeli withdrawal from the territories is proven. On the contrary, this clause does no such thing, because the reference clearly applies only to an offensive war. If not, the resolution would provide an incentive for aggression. If one country attacks another, and the defender repels the attack and acquires territory in the process, the former interpretation would require the defender to return the land it took. Thus, aggressors would have little to lose because they would be insured against the main consequence of defeat.

The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3, is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement." This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties. This is also the implication of Resolution 338, according to Arthur Goldberg, the American ambassador who led the delegation to the UN in 1967. That resolution, adopted after the 1973 war, called for negotiations between the parties to start immediately and concurrently with the cease*fire.

Withdrawal from Territories

The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." This is linked to the second unambiguous clause calling for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the recognition that "every State in the area" has the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

The resolution does not make Israeli withdrawal a prerequisite for Arab action. Moreover, it does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. This was quite deliberate. The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."

This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."

Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."

The resolutions clearly call on the Arab states to make peace with Israel. The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.


Israel's Obligations to the Palestinians

The Palestinians are not mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does it require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory. In fact, the use of the generic term "refugee" was a deliberate acknowledgment that two refugee problems were products of the conflict-one Arab and another Jewish. In the case of the latter, almost as many Jews fled Arab countries as Palestinians left Israel. The Jews, however, were never compensated by the Arab states, nor were any UN organizations ever established to help them.



full
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html


What was United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and what does it say?
Various other officials have commented on the negotiation of UNSCR 242 and how it relates to Israel's position. The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them.
The United States' UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that:

The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words "the" or "all" and the "June 5, 1967 lines" ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal. less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably Insecure.

Tons of info and sources
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php

A detailed description by Goldberg of the negotiating process behind UNSCR 242 appears in "U.N. RESOLUTION 242: ORIGIN, MEANING, AND SIGNIFICANCE"
Resolution 242 After Twenty Years
http://www.mefacts.com/cached.asp?x_id=10159


New Society
Harvard College Student Middle East Journal
The Unmaking of U.N. Resolution 242
http://newsocietyjournal.com/2007/09/07/the-unmaking-of-un-resolution-242-the-story-of-how-resolution-242-was-undone-before-it-was-even-finished/

Text

Text

[Violet_Crumble]

15. I can't see any reference to 'disputed' in that...

So I stand by my statement that yr OPINION that the West Bank is merely disputed territory is not a fact.

As for the interpretations of 242, you can keep on posting them ad nauseum and they still don't deal with the fact that in the preamble of 242 it states that the acquisition of territory by war is not allowed. And while you've gathered opinions that mesh with yr own and the biased pro-Israel sites you've copied them from, there's plenty more that don't...

So, in yr own words, how do you explain the preamble of 242? Why would anyone who thought that Israel was entitled to that territory agree to a Resolution with that in the preamble?

[shira]

16. If settlements were a barrier to peace....

...then the dismantling of all settlements in Gaza should have been received with a mutual step into the direction of lasting peace between the 2 sides. The problem is that the Palestinian governement is run by extremists who do not want peace. The same situation existed prior to 1967 and is what led to the wars of 1948 and 1967. There were no settlements or occupations then. In fact, there was no occupation between 1995 and 2001.

What was the Palestinian leadership's excuse for war in 1948 and 1967, before there were any settlements or occupation?

ps
Admittedly, settlements are not helpful to bringing peace in the region. But they can hardly be described as a major reason for no peace.

[Vegasaurus]

17. The anti-Israel crowd can never answer this question

because they like to claim that all the terrorism and violence is "BECAUSE" of the settlements, and never answer to the fact that there has been violence from Arabs towards Jews for 100 years, long before there was ever even a state of Israel.

The violence and terrorism and wars aren't about "occupation", but about Jews in the middle east, as has always been the Arabs' problem. They don't want to share their neighborhood and never have.

Settlements are a problem, but they aren't THE problem.

Oh, and welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Of course settlements are a barrier to peace...

Saying they're not is as unrealistic as saying that Qassams aren't an obstacle to peace.

Do you believe that Fatah are extremists who don't want peace? It's just that you appear to be lumping all Palestinian govts in the same basket. Also, I don't think there was a palestinian govt prior to 1967 and 1948, and in the case of 1967 I don't think the Palestinians themselves were one of the warring parties...

When it comes to 1948 (actually it was prior to that when the civil war was happening) I think there's pretty obvious reasons as to why it did happen. As Israel didn't even exist as a state yet, military occupation and settlements don't even come into the picture.

There was no occupation between 1995 and 2001? Of course there was....

on edit: A question for you. If you don't think the settlements are an obstacle to peace, could you explain how a peaceful resolution could be reached where Israeli settlements remain exactly how they are now? Don't you think their presence kind of kills off any chance of a viable and independent Palestinian state?

[Phx_Dem]

19. A land swap

would leave maybe 100,000 Jews in Palestine.

Why can't 6 million Palestinians allow a few jews to live in the future state of Palestine?

[Vegasaurus]

20. Because it is important for all of the Arab states to have no Jews

Of course, the Arabs want to live in Israel, with all the economic and social benefits, but G-d forbid a Jew wants to live in an Arab country (or return to their land, or their belongings, stolen from them).

It is always one sided when it comes to this conflict.

The Arab Palestinians accept no responsibility, refuse to negotiate, and expect everything in return,

The Israeli Jews are expected to give them everything, and still be looked at as a pariah state.

What a mixed up bunch.

[LeftishBrit]

21. I don't agree that 'it is always one sided when it comes to this conflict'

There are plenty on both sides who want everything, without giving too much in return. And this will have to change if there is to be peace. It's not just on one side, however.

Also, it doesn't seem to be the case that the Arabs in general, or the Palestinians in the OTs, want to live in Israel. It's the Israeli Arabs of Israel proper, who (mostly) do.

I do agree that many of the existing Arab states seem to want it both ways: to blame the Israelis for mistreating Palestinians, while they themselves continue to have no responsibility to help or compensate Palestinians *or* Middle Eastern Jews.

[Vegasaurus]

22. I think it is quite one-sided

Israel has ceded territory, given weapons, money, medical treatment, supplies, fuel, and aid.

What have the Palestinians given Israel?

Terrorism, suicide bombings, border clashes or kidnappings, all the while blaming Israel for all of their problems.

In order for things to change for the Palestinians, they HAVE to start accepting responsibility for themselves, if only a small amount, which is better than 0, which is what we have now.

And for the Israelis, yes, they have to stop expanding settlements.

But I believe if the rockets and terrorism stopped, so would the settlements.

[subsuelo]

23. Both sides fight terrorism with terrorism

That is the problem

[Zionismisnotracism]

26. What is the Israeli terrorism you speak of?

Please cite some of these terrorist activity currently engaged in by Israel.

[subsuelo]

27. Killing innocent people and bulldozing people's homes, for example.

[Zionismisnotracism]

25. I find rejectionism far stronger on the Palestinians

side. This may be due to the fact that many of those who claim to support them don't truly support them. Rather, they dislike Israel or Jews and use Palestinian sufferring as a mask by which to hide their true agenda.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I thought it was against the rules of this forum to conflate Jews with Israelis...

The reality is it wouldn't matter if they were Jewish, Hindu, or Rastafarians. What they are is Israeli settlers..

I'll answer yr question with a question. Why would you think anyone would want a few extremist Hebron settlers living in their state?

[shira]

28. my mistake

Settlements are "a" barrier to peace, but certainly not "the" barrier to peace. They didn't exist prior to 1967 and there were no prospects for peace then. The goalposts shifted after 1967, and that's my point. There was no chance for peace prior to 1967 - no proposed peaceful 2 state solution, and in fact, no goal of a Palestinian state at all - the only goal of Arab leadership being the destruction of Israel. Some people may think the goals of Arab and Palestinian leadership have changed since 1967. I wish I could see evidence of that. I trust the Palestinian people far more than their leadership, of which I have zero trust.

And yes, Fatah are extremists who do not want peace. Anyone who ventures to PMW and takes a look at Fatah's own media can see this very clearly. What Fatah's media gets away with is truly disgusting.

Between 1995 and 20001 were the Oslo years in which the IDF pulled out of the territories. In 2002, the IDF re-entered and resumed the occupation when terror attacks were at their peak.

As for your question to me, settlements can either be dismantled or there can be negotiated land swaps. Peace can easily be achieved with the right Palestinian leadership.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. They're certainly one of the major barriers...

I posted a not very comprehensive list of major barriers to peace elsewhere in this thread that you might like to take a look at and comment on...

Of course the settlements didn't exist prior to 67 seeing as how Jordan was occupying the West Bank. Both Jordan and Israel shared the same motivations in not wanting a Palestinian state to emerge, and Palestinian nationalism only came to life again after 1967....

You haven't seen any evidence of Arab and Palestinian leaderships not wanting anything but the destruction of Israel? I'm guessing that's the problem when people hang round extremely partisan sites like PMW for too long - they miss seeing what's obvious to everyone else. Have you heard of the Arab Peace Plan? Or the peace treaties between Israel, Jordan and Egypt? Or the PLO's official recognition of Israel with the mutual letters of recognition in 1993? I can supply you with links to all of them if you want to acquaint yrself with them.

Okay, based on what an extremely partisan and not particularly honest organisation run by an extremist settler says, you decide Fatah are extremists. Can you explain to me what the extremism is that Fatah is currently engaging in?

Yr mistaken if you think the military occupation of the West Bank ended between 1995 and 2001. It most certainly didn't, and if as you claim the IDF had withdrawn from the West Bank, then was it a different army that was demolishing Palestinian homes in Jenin and in parts of the Jordan Valley than the Israeli army that was still occupying the West Bank?

As for yr last sentence, it's not some one-sided thing where only one side has to have the *right* leadership. Israel also has to have the right leadership to achieve a lasting and fair peace, and so far neither side has had the leadership capable or willing to bring about that peace...

[shira]

31. wonderful conversation, thank you

I looked at your list and I agree. I would also add the fact that it's difficult negotiating peace with a freeper government that has little regard for its own citizens; like women and gays, or brainwashing children into being hateful and intolerant. With such little regard for their own people, I have little hope that the current PA govt will ever be honest brokers for peace with a sworn enemy it obviously holds in contempt (see their media).

Why do you think Palestinian nationalism only came to life after 1967 and not before?

Peace plans on paper or in words are nothing if not backed by actions. Unfortunately, I have seen little to no action that shows Palestinian leadership is truly dedicated to peace. They're hardly dedicated to their own people when women, gays, and children are constantly abused or killed for reasons only known to freepers. Why would they be committed to their enemies?

As for Fatah they are extreme, again, in the way they treat their own women, children, and gays. How could any reasonable person possibly disagree? If you don't trust PMW, then how about this human rights organization?

http://www.phrmg.org/

You will find they are equally critical of both sides. However, you will also find support for PMW's reports which prove Fatah consists primarily of active extremist freepers. From killing collaborators to glorifying suicide bombers, or inciting more violence and hatred in children. If that's not extreme freeperism, then what is? It's not that this just happens in the territories, because extremists exist in every society bar none, but that this is actually provoked, allowed, and glorified by the leadership.

Please provide evidence (links please) of Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank between 1995-2001.

I agree both sides need the right leadership. However, I'm not certain how anyone can equate the leadership of a western left or right wing liberal progressive society with a freeper led Palestinian government. Obviously there is no reason 2 liberal societies cannot come to a peaceful settlement. That's not what we're dealing with here between Israel and Palestine. The problem here is one liberally led society (no matter who is in charge) vs. one freeper led society.

[shira]

32. extremism that Fatah is currently engaging in

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=300102

Meanwhile, I was shocked to see the images on television of Palestinian children going to the Muqata on the Day of the Child to support Arafat.

The Palestinian president is still talking about shaheeds and he encouraged children to become martyrs by telling them that one shaheed on earth is considered by God as great as 40 shaheeds in heaven. (This statement has not yet been condemned by any organizations for the protection of children.)

It seems Arafat is still encouraging Palestinians to victimize themselves, an attitude that is without logic or ethics. Instead of talking about peace and life, instead of supporting coexistence, instead of fulfilling the consciousness of human beings, Arafat is calling for death. It appears the nearly 2,500 Palestinians and more than 700 Israelis who were killed during this intifada are not enough to fulfill Arafat's political interests. I hope - and am rather sure - that Abu Mazen will not behave in this manner. I also hope that Abu Mazen, with his government, will do his best to put an end to the terror and the violence.

I'm hoping you'll agree that the above is a strong example of Fatah extremism as recently as 2003. I'm certain you'll also agree that Hamas currently encourages the same thing from children as Arafat did 5 years ago.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885911736&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

That's as recently as 2006 with Abbas in charge. That's Fatah extremism.

[pelsar]

33. the occupation continued during oslo....

whereas the IDF did pullout of certain areas, the general occupation did continue. The Palestinians did not by any means of the imagination have full independance......

nor would i describe any of the Palestinians govt as "freeper"......i would describe them as neither democratic nor dictatorship nor tribal...though their govts (hamas and fatah) have a mix: characteristics of a democracy and many of a dictatorship and many of "tribal or paternal style of govt....sort of a hybird govt.

[shira]

34. thanks

whereas the IDF did pullout of certain areas, the general occupation did continue. The Palestinians did not by any means of the imagination have full independance......

Understood and thank you for the correction.

Would you say that the Palestinians had more independence during the Oslo days than at any other time?

nor would i describe any of the Palestinians govt as "freeper"......i would describe them as neither democratic nor dictatorship nor tribal...though their govts (hamas and fatah) have a mix: characteristics of a democracy and many of a dictatorship and many of "tribal or paternal style of govt....sort of a hybird govt.

How about extreme right wing - really, really extreme right?

These govts promote hatred and intolerance of others (brainwashing their kids to hate) and condone honor killings, execution of gays and collaborators, and gross mistreatment of women. As far as I know, they do not prosecute or incarcerate individual terrorists or their terrorist organizations and leadership unless under immense pressure by outside govts to do so. In fact they glorify and reward martyrs. There is little to no freedom of press or the freedom to dissent.

Do you agree?

This is pretty scary stuff and "freeper" like to me so I'm not sure why this shouldn't be labeled as such. I'm open to correction, however. I would literally fear for my family's lives and those of all my friends if I ever lived in such a society.

[pelsar]

35. did they have more independence during oslo?

interesting question....on one hand once arafat and company took over i would say the avg Palestinians gained an independence in terms of self identity but lost in terms of real freedoms. Meaning they lost freedom of speech, their court system became corrupt, they lost freedom of movement (suicide bombers and the subsequent road blocks etc), they lost individual security, be it via arafats security groups or israeli raids today (far more prevalent then pre oslo).

but no, they are not "right wing'....those western descriptions dont fit what they have going on. (whatever you think about the wests right wing, they dont include clan/tribal organizations, gangs hiding behind pseudo liberation groups, etc). They are extremely nationalistic and or theocratic oriented, which may remind you of the right wing, but there is no resemblance when it comes to civil rights etc.

[Zionismisnotracism]

24. Settlements are far less a barrier to peace

than rejectionism on both sides. Settlements can be raised easily, the settlers can not nor can the Palestinian militants be mollified.

And Gaza definitely didn't show the Palestinian people as being ready to give up that rejectionism.