Your post is full of double standards.
Yes, in terms of politics, the Palestinian people are not equal. They don't have a state, they don't really have an army or even an economy. Hell, most of their infrastructure is reliant on Israel as well. For a similar comparison, I refer you to the negotiations between Ireland and Britain. While Ireland was treated with, they were not treated as equals. Nor should they have been.
Put simply, they were not on equal footing. We are not talking individuals here, we are talking a collective reality.
No, the situation here is not racism, it is mere practicality. For thousands of years, wars have displaced people. That sucks, but it is a reality.
Before beginning, even your counterexample fails. Why shouldn't the British have treated the Irish as equals and with respect? It was just as wrong for them not to have done so. Ireland is not Britain and the British had no more right to colonize that and lord it over the Irish than the Israelis have to colonize the West Bank and Gaza and lord it over the Palestinians.
Again, the disadvantage at which the Palestinians find themselves is because there is no Palestinian state. Nowhere do you deny that Palestinians have equal rights with Israelis simply as a matter of being human, nor can you deny it. It is an elementary fact.
The fact that Israel has a state and the Palestinians do not gives Israel the power, but not the right, to forcibly remove Palestinians from their homes and replace them with
Israeli settlements. This policy is not practical. It has nothing to do enhancing Israeli security and even detracts from it. And it is racist. This policy has everything to do with asserting the superiority of a Jew over an Arab.
Often, Mr. Muddle, you decry what happened to the Jews living in Arab countries after World War II. You are right to decry that. It wasn't wrong because Arabs did it to Jews; it was just wrong. It is just as wrong as when Jews do it Arabs. Only a racist ideology can justify can justify the denial of basic rights on the basis of nationality.
One cannot call it wrong and immoral when the white South Africans denied rights to blacks and call it just and practical when the Israelis do the same thing to Palestinians. One cannot call British colonization of the world -- including Ireland -- an violation of the rights of the native peoples and approve the Israelis' use of land beyond her borders for her own benefit at the expense of those who live there.
Papering over the racist nature of Israel's settlement policy with past historical atrocities does not excuse it or make it right. It's another
tu quoque argument. No matter what fuzzy math one uses, two wrongs do not make a right.
No victorious state has ever welcomed back enemies in bulk into their country.
Israel won't be the first either. To do so would destroy the state of Israel. So that is what we are talking about, political reality, not racism.
While others may disagree, I am not proposing that the Israelis welcome enemies back into their country. I am merely proposing that they leave the land of their enemies and respect what belongs to somebody else, including their enemies.
If the Palestinians have no right to return to their homes in what is now Israel, then the Israelis have no right to settle Palestinian territory. The Israelis have every right to stop Palestinians from entering Israel and the Palestinian have every right to move freely in the Palestinian territories.
Of course, you may want to denote the territories with the word others prefer,
disputed. The way sophists apologizing for Likud use the word, it seems to give Israel the right to claim the land and not the people living on it. Any acre of land is either Israel or it is not. If it is not Israel, then the Israelis have no right to exploit it; if it is Israel, then Israel is obligated to grant citizenship and equal rights to those living there. To do otherwise is racism. Which brings us back to the point: Israel's settlement policy is racist.
On the other hand, we could regard the land as Israel and the people as something else. In that case, instead of resisting an occupation, the Palestinian people have launched a separatist movement. Given that housing in which they cannot live accessed by roads on which they cannot travel is commonplace in territory where they are over 90% of the population, such a separatist movement is more than justified.
I would have no problem with both sides appointing new leaders. But Sharon is a war leader. As long as Israel faces war, he will likely stay. If the Palestinian people (yep, the onus is on them) choose a peaceful leader, Israel will respond.
Again, this is a double standard. The onus is on the Palestinian people to choose a leader who will choose peace, but the Israelis can choose the obstinate Sharon if they please. Is there no onus on the Israelis to choose a leader who will compromise?
The onus is on both people to seek compromise. No one is beyond reproach.
It is my guess that down deep Arafat fears peace more than he fears war. I doubt he can run a state and I think he knows that. He would rather die the rebel leader than fail as the first prime minister.
Guess all you want. I, too, believe Arafat is a failed leader. However, I also believe he is irrelevant and has been for some time.
You talk about moral authority, but let's face it, that seldom comes into play in politics. We are talking REAL authority and that Sharon and * have. That is the mistake Arafat has made. He simply bluffed too long.
All of them have had power for too long. We, the people of America, Israel and Palestine, should take matters into our hands and do something about it. They an unworthy leaders who are beholden to marginal extremists who do not wish to see the problem resolved.
The destruction of Israel would be a "crime against humanity," but I see a lot of folks on this board advocating just that. Forcing the Palestinians to accept borders they don't like is nothing anywhere close.
Yes, the destruction of Israel would be catastrophic. However, that does not mean that Israel's settlement policy is not itself a crime against humanity. Furthermore, to say that the only choice is between a continuous state of occupation and repression and Israel's destruction is simply
ludicrous.
There is a resolution to this crisis. It will take a great deal of work on both sides and a great change in many attitudes. It will mean that the religious zealots who now hold sway in America, Israel and the Palestinian Territories will have to be marginalized.
Meanwhile, Sharon's unilateral approach is doomed to failure. It is undertaken because he does not think a Palestinian is somebody with whom he needs to negotiate, but merely somebody to subjugate. This racist approach is the basis of the problem, not the solution. It will do nothing remove the fear Palestinians have of being driven from their homes to make way for Israeli settlements; as long as that fear is justified, Palestinian resistance will also be justified.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
