Skip to content

Is This What “Compromise” Brings?

Saturday, January 31, 2009

So, those who want “compromise” between the Palestinians and the Israelis, this is what “compromise” looks like now and this has what it has always looked like.

While Hamas accepts that Israel exists (and is looking to mend ties with Fatah) and that there should be a two-state solution with only 22% of their original land given to them (a huge compromise) for full political and economic autonomy (a quite modist proposal) and the 1967 boarders (not out of line either) this is what Israel gives them.

  1. Israeli public opinion thinks that Israel “didn’t go far enough” in the massacure of Gazans, thus, giving more streangth to the right.
  2. While Israel has signed numerous agreements (from Carter to the present day) on freezing settlements Israel has sped up ethnic cleansing settlement building; thus turning the West Bank into a bunch of bantustans.
  3. In order to set up an “independent state” Israel will keep nearly 230,000 settles in the West Bank, thus cutting the nation in half and keeping checkpoints, walls, troops, and crazed armed settlers, in the West Bank.
  4. The Refugees will not have the right to return to their homeland.
  5. And if you thought that was bad…you’re wrong!  That’s generous!  At least that’s what Foreign Minister Livni thinks.  She wants “Maximum settlers” for the most amount of Palestinian land.

And the left wonders why Palestinians continue to resist Israeli genocidal occupation.

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. nate permalink
    Saturday, January 31, 2009 11:45 pm

    so 4 rockets must be the true meaning of “ceasefire” right?

    dont pretend you know what its like here.

  2. Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:19 am

    I’m not pretending Nate, I never said what it was like in Israel. But four rockets to you is equal to Gaza City being flattened, illegal encroachment onto Palestinian land with settlements, refugee camps, and over 1,000 dead?

  3. nate permalink
    Sunday, February 1, 2009 7:20 am

    1) 4 rockets since the cease fire began, well over 8,000 total
    2) Gaza City was not flattened
    3) the loss of life is obviously hideous and nauseating, but how many militants were among those dead? on top of that, hamas’s use of human shields and civilian areas as rocket launching sites is the largest reason for civilian bloodshed
    4) Ehud Barak offered Arafat all of Gaza and 98% of the west bank in the 90s and was rejected
    5) none of this is reason to cling to hatred and rejection. your argument for this blog is “abandon peace with Israel,” and that is an absurd solution that can only result in massive killings

  4. Sunday, February 1, 2009 8:37 pm

    1) All previous cease fires were supposed to actually have the lifting of an economic blockade on Palestine, all the way from Carter till the Roadmap to Peace under Bush Jr. Israel never adhered to that and continued its economic blockade and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land including military raids. Hamas actually pretty much kept its end of the deal during the recent cease fire, can’t vouch for the recent one though, but not sure if Israel broke it either.

    2) What would you call the total destruction of massive neighborhoods in Gaza City and other areas? If not “flattened” then what? Gaza City obviously wasn’t literally “flattened” but what would you call that?

    3) Yes, the loss of life is nauseating, but how do you know Hamas was using “human shields” if there are not verified reports outside of IDF press conferences and how do you know when a “militant” is killed and a “civilian” is killed? We gotta remember that many civilians (though not all) in Gaza support Hamas and many families have Hamas members in them. Hamas’ militant wing is a guerrilla wing, guerrilla wings always stay within the populace as they are generally made up of the civilian populace and have no contemporary military equiopment (tanks, planes, etc.), was that way with the French Resistance, was that way with the Viet Minh, it was that way with the Irgun, and is that way with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam military guerrilla units.

    4) That’s a complete myth, there was never a 98% deal.

    5) “Peace” with Israel has meant the occupation of the West Bank since 1967, ethnic cleansing, bombings, Israeli terrorism, settlers, economic stagnation, economic blockades, etc. etc. That’s not peace, how can one “abandon peace” when there was not peace to begin with? That’s absurd.

    Plus, none of those points address the original blog post topic which was the apartheid Israeli government’s sense of “compromise” is completely perverse.

  5. nate permalink
    Monday, February 2, 2009 12:24 am

    hamas kept its end of the deal? actually, hamas has NEVER kept its end of the deal, whether its with Israel or the PA. rockets were still fired during every ceasfire with hamas.
    what ‘ethnic cleansing’ are you talking about jack? Israeli Arabs enjoy equal rights in Israel’s democracy.
    hamas has a history and is well known to use human sheilds (there are mountains of evidence, including video evidence from human rights groups, not just the IDF)
    there WAS a deal for 98% of the west bank under Barak, Arafat and Bill Clinton. read up.
    its amazing that you would argue on behalf of hamas, an organization that wants to restore the Islamic Caliphate more than determine a sovereign Palestinian State, and mask it in some desire to be a part of Palestinian Nationalism, despite the fact that you have never seen how any of the sides in this conflict (Israel, Hamas and the PA) actually act.

  6. Monday, February 2, 2009 1:04 am

    Actually, Hamas, which I’m not trying to defend or attack, pretty much kept all rocket attacks to nil during the ceasefire brokered in 2008, it was Israel which didn’t keep up its end of the deal by lifting the economic blockade.

    There is ethnic cleansing, Nate, and Palestinians are treated pretty bad within apartheid Israel, especially the Bedouin.

    Again, that “98%” deal is total garbage. I have “read up” on it, quite a bit actually.

    Nate, your arguments aren’t really sustainable on close (or even passing) inspection. It is true that Hamas is an Islamic organization, which I obvoiusly don’t agree with (I tend to support the PFLP) but one thing they do want is a Palestinian state. Which is why Al Qaeda and other Islamic militant organizations actually routinely condemn Hamas and why the state run media in U.S. backed countries in the region tend to also beat up on Hamas for being “soft on the ‘Jews'” (anti-semitism tends to be the weapon of choice for many U.S. backed governments in the region). Hamas has actually agreed to a two-state solution, it has also been pragmatic in negotiations with Israel (which other Islamic militants condemn) and has at certain times reached out to Fatah and the PFLP; so, essentially, they tend to care more about a Palestinian state than a hardcore adherence to Islamic Caliphatism (but that is not to ignore radical Islamic bent).

    The reason why they have much ground support within Gaza and parts of the West Bank are vast and complicated and I won’t get into them here but the point is, is that they do want to set up a separate state.

    despite the fact that you have never seen how any of the sides in this conflict (Israel, Hamas and the PA) actually act.

    Nate, this is a quite disingenuous and faulty line of logic, strawman actually. While I have never been to Israel it doesn’t mean that I can’t form an opinion. I have talked with ex-soldiers who have served in the West Bank, I’ve talked to refusniks, have friends who have lived there, know organizers who have organized their and have come from Gaza, I have personal friends whom I talk to weekly in Egypt whom have set up aid caravans and help smuggle medicine and food into Gaza, I know and have talked to trade unionist activists on both sides of the Egypt-Gaza border, and I’ve obviously read up (as anyone should and as you pointed out) numerous books on the subject. It is true though that I have not been there (I will, one day) but that actually doesn’t invalidate my argument on Israel and on the original subject of the post which is on Israel’s recent “peace” offers to the PA.

    And while you are there as well one could easily make strawman arguments about you “not seeing both sides” or “full investigating” the region, etc. etc. but that too wouldn’t invalidate your points either.

  7. nate permalink
    Tuesday, February 3, 2009 2:02 am

    i wasnt calling your arguments invalid, jack. what i mean to say is that one cannot get a true bearing on the attitudes, suspicions, misconceptions, etc. that exist in this region without being here. you can read anything you want, from chomsky to dershowitz to edward said or even benny morris and youre still getting secondary analysis. my arguments are based on the facts on the facts here, and i have not given you my opinions on either side. it seems, however that you take a hard line toward anything Israeli without actually experiencing life here. even my Palestinian and Arab friends often take a more moderate stance than you with regard to the peace offerings from Israel.
    and this is not an apartheid state. this is a state with an imperfect government ready to move away from occupation, so long as it doesnt threaten Israelis, which the very existance of hamas as a legitimate governing body does (read their charter). black South Africans who lived through Apartheid can be very adament about this point.

  8. Tuesday, February 3, 2009 2:15 am

    what i mean to say is that one cannot get a true bearing on the attitudes, suspicions, misconceptions, etc. that exist in this region without being here.

    Yes, yes, quite true my friend. You are also true about the readings as well. It seems to me that the experiences seem to shape many things in this world.

    I take the view that Israel is an apartheid state based on talking to Israelis and Palestinians whom have lived it, studied it, written on such, etc. but it is indeed true that unless one lives it one can not fully know.

    It seems that some of those whom live in Israel and Palestine, Arab Muslim, European Jew, etc., etc. take certain stands based on those experiences that take more of my view and more of yours.

    As for Hamas, their charter is indeed an existential threat too Israel’s existence, however it is hard to find a Hamas member (save some in Syria) that take an absolute hard line on their charter. Hamas has acknowledged that Israel exists and they are willing to agree to a two-state solution, which speaks much louder than their charter, in my opinion. PLO had a charter that to called for the destruction of Israel but that did not preclude Israel to negotiate with the PLO, however Hamas and the PLO are quite different but all in all it might be better to start negotiating on a two-state solution based on Israeli commitment to getting rid of colonial settlements, but, that is getting to far ahead.

    As of my hard line, who knows, maybe in ten years or less it will change, maybe not, I tend to agree more to a one-state solution but that is neither here nor there.

    However, we, I believe, are at an impasse, the next time you come back to the Bay I would be more than willing to catch up with and hear of your experiences in Israel over coffee, my treat.

  9. nate permalink
    Tuesday, February 3, 2009 3:13 am

    youve got yourself a deal my friend.

Trackbacks

  1. BookMarx for 2009-01-31 « The Mustard Seed

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: