Overall I'm glad that we are no longer talking about the civil war.

Even though you didn't ask me, I'll offer my view. I certainly think that there are some parallels among people who do not feel represented by their government.

Overall, I think that the analogy breaks down. Certainly the symbolism of the Nakba / Israeli Independence Day suggests that the issue isn't the occupation of the West Bank or the Golan, but that the issue is the existence of Israel itself. On some levels this supports the view of the current Israeli government which having experienced Arab and Palestinian treachery since the 20's sees no hope to a two state solution. If there is no hope to a 2 state solution, then there's no reason for Israel to give back the West Bank.

The 44 year anniversary of the 6-day war is less than a month away. Presumably that is the day where protest makes sense. Why isn't June 10, 1967 called the Nakba?

To the extent that the protesters were trying to enter Israel proper, I appreciate the emotion, but it is a little weird. I don't know whether the Israeli response was over the top, but certainly a nation has the right to protect its sovereignty and itself from people throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails from across the border. For domestic disturbances, the Israelis use rubber bullets vs. the Syrian government's use of real ones. But when people are across the border, it is not a domestic disturbance. It is a kind of act of war or terrorism.

If the protesters are marching in the West Bank I think the analogy is more appropriate. People on the West Bank are represented by a government, bit it is not a democracy, and it is not a state. I support the notion that people have the right to protest both their lack of democracy and a foreign occupation.

Overall, I think it is great that the Arab people are trying to move towards democracy. They deserve that and it can best succeed if it comes from within. I also appreciate that the Israelis are concerned. For me, hope is more powerful than fear. But I haven't been on the front lines for close to a century.

One of the interesting things about these demonstrations is that in the West Bank, the local authorities controlled them and there was no violence. Actually in Gaza the numbers were limited and the effect limited by the Palestinian authorities. In Syria the government promoted the demonstrations. presumably to divert attention from their own problems with the awakening.

I can't find the quote this morning but an Israelis minister asked yesterday, "What do we do if 100,000 Palestinians peacefully walkk up to the border and begin dismantling the fences?"

Whats interesting is that the use of peaceful protest worked in Tunisia and Egypt. By using them as examples, the tatics of the Palestinians may change. It seems that they've given up on working for a better deal from the Israelis and will begin to use the tactics of the Awakening to pressure for change.Whilst also working through the International mechanisms...

If Israel is totally non-responsive and continues to stall progress in the face of "Awakening" tactics, without the use of violent terrorism. ....they may be even more isolated in the International community. Maybe that won't matter... On the other hand ... isolated nations have usually reacted to pressure at some point.

rickyp wrote:One of the interesting things about these demonstrations is that in the West Bank, the local authorities controlled them and there was no violence. Actually in Gaza the numbers were limited and the effect limited by the Palestinian authorities. In Syria the government promoted the demonstrations. presumably to divert attention from their own problems with the awakening.

I can't find the quote this morning but an Israelis minister asked yesterday, "What do we do if 100,000 Palestinians peacefully walkk up to the border and begin dismantling the fences?"

I would think rubber bullets and tear gas would do the trick?

An alternative way of looking at it is a huge step back for the Arab Awakening. Instead of focussing on their own leadership and their own political and social institutions (which is the root of the problem) the Syrians and Iranians are trying to change the subject. Arab misery from Tunisia to Iraq (and Muslim misery from Sudan to Afghanistan) is Israel's fault (and the west's fault). 20 or so dictatorships of varying degrees of repressiveness is a reaction to Westenn and Zionist provocations. Big picture, this is a recipe for failure.

would think rubber bullets and tear gas would do the trick?

So spake Mubarek.
And many before.
And considering that live ammunition wsa resorted to already, I'd expect that to be part of the response...
If the "setlements" are a PR matter, consider what peaceful massed demonstrations can be when the police turn on them?

An alternative way of looking at it is a huge step back for the Arab Awakening. Instead of focussing on their own leadership and their own political and social institutions (which is the root of the problem) the Syrians and Iranians are trying to change the subject. Arab misery from Tunisia to Iraq (and Muslim misery from Sudan to Afghanistan) is Israel's fault (and the west's fault). 20 or so dictatorships of varying degrees of repressiveness is a reaction to Westenn and Zionist provocations. Big picture, this is a recipe for failure.

I believe that Syria is using this as a distraction. So yes, they are trying to co-opt the Awakening with their organized "protests" in the Golan.
But consider how differently the protests and responses in Gaza and particularly The West Bank.
It could all end up in horrible violence with nothing acieved...but I think most people grant that for those governments that have survived by the use of violence against largely peaceful protest - things aren't the same. Does Israel want its reaction to peaceful protests to compare with Syria?

Ok, a few things here. Firstly, Ricky the date used to commemorate the Nakba is the day after the Israeli declaration of Independence. The two are linked.

However, RJ, it's not simply about not wanting Israel to exist, it's about the manner of it's creation. In the weeks around the DoI, hundreds of thousands of Arabs left what is now Israel. Some were encouraged by their own side, some of their own accord fleeing successful forces. But many were told to leave by the Haganah/IDF. The largest example of that was the expulsions from Lydda (now called Lod). Of course a prime factor was the panic after Dier Yassin.

The Nakba is about the right of return. For a long time, Arab refugees didn't use the term as it implied finality (ie that they were not going to be able to reclaim their property). It's really only in the last 20 years or so that it has been used. But the reason it's about 1948 and not 1967 is that 1948 was when about 700,000 Arabs were pushed out of Israel, whereas 1967 was a military defeat for various Arab states that didn't involve the same level of civilian upheaval.

Here's the point in the debate where you have to point out that lots of Jews left places in the region and often without being able to sell up. However, that was not the fault of the Palestinian Arabs being evicted from Israel. The Jewish refugees were often housed in the properties that had been vacated by Arabs, but the Arabs who left Israel didn't get the same arrangement. We can argue about the causes and effects and the political aspects of who is to blame, but ultimately, the commemoration is about the events of 1948 as it affects the Arabs who left and their descendants.

Now, there has been some conflation here about the events of the weekend. Firstly, the people who tried to cross borders, or went to the border to protest, were unarmed. The molotov cocktails were in Jerusalem, not at the borders. Secondly, it's only one Arab state that appears to have allowed people to cross the border. Jordan arrested people on the way. Egypt tried to intercept them and about 80 reached the border before being stopped. Lebanon's army came along after the incident there started but moved people back. Similarly, in the West Bank the PA didn't want people to cause trouble at the border. Even the Gazans who were protesting at the border crossing there were being told to move away by Hamas. So it was just Syria. Not all Arab governments are the same (and of course Arabs are not the same as their governments).

This year has two factors that explain an uptick in activity on the day:

1) The wider Arab uprising issue, which has meant people are more likely to protest, and also that Syria is desperate to try and move the focus from their own oppression. While it may appear to you that it would be 'more analogous' for Palestinians to be protesting against the PA, there are two problems with that. Firstly, a lot of Palestinian refugees are not in Palestine, but are in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt.... Secondly, the PA is not a fully sovereign state like the other Arab countries where protests have taken place. A lot of what ires the ordinary Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza is not down to the PA, but to Israel. Or at least that's how they see it.

2) There has been a recent law passed in Israel that is aimed at opposing the Nakba commemorations, and a hardline Zionist group has been agitating against it as a 'lie'. Combined with the government of Israel including people who want a 'loyalty test' for the Arabs living in Israel, the continuing impasse on negotiations (meaning that the right of return is further from being on the table than ever, let alone the rest of the questions around finding a settlement). Palestinians will be being told that this is down to Israeli intransigence.

RJ - by the way, you often bring up that the Israelis see the Arabs as not trustworthy after the past 100 years. Well, guess what? The reverse is true. Israel has breached promises too. At some point someone has to break the cycle, or nothing will change. Why insist that the 'other side' be the ones to do so?

rickyp wrote:

would think rubber bullets and tear gas would do the trick?

So spake Mubarek.
And many before.
And considering that live ammunition wsa resorted to already, I'd expect that to be part of the response...

Well, I doubt that border forces in an area where wars have been fought and where deadly force is used on suspect bombers would really have rubber bullets and teargas around to be honest.

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:

would think rubber bullets and tear gas would do the trick?

So spake Mubarek.
And many before.
And considering that live ammunition wsa resorted to already, I'd expect that to be part of the response...

Well, I doubt that border forces in an area where wars have been fought and where deadly force is used on suspect bombers would really have rubber bullets and teargas around to be honest.

I suspect that it will be added to the Israeli arsenal.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:I like you Owen, but you're just being intentionally difficult here... again. And yes, it is you, specifically, behaving with a lack of respect. Please tell me what the hell is wrong with the phrase "you people?" Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about, or how these can be perceived as offensive to anyone.

You don't see how that could be derogatory? Then it's probably best that we avoid each other on this thread.

But I repeat your one major error. Israel does not own the West Bank, and does not claim it, and under it's own law, Israel is not supposed to be funding settlement (it's legal to protect citizens who have settled, of course). As for 'possession in 9/10 of the law', it doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that in an ownership dispute, the possessor is assumed to own it unless evidence to the contrary can be found. Israel does not claim ownership of the West Bank, merely occupation for the protection of Israel itself. The only part of the 1967 gains that is claimed is Jerusalem. However, for the rest, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the West Bank was under occupation, as opposed to being part of Israel. If you don't like it, take it up with them.

While some hardline Zionists want to see Eretz Israel formed, including all of the land up to the Jordan, they are arguing a religious case, not a legal one. Yes, Israel militarily occupies the West Bank.

Likewise, for some time the USA has militarily occupied Iraq. Is Iraq a part of the USA? Nope.

Your desire to see Israel invade neighbouring countries and spark a major conflict is also noted.

RJ - Maybe. But having are they easily interchangeable with lethal weapons? Does it increase the chance of error or confusion? Who has to authorise using one or the other?

danivon wrote:Ok, a few things here. Firstly, Ricky the date used to commemorate the Nakba is the day after the Israeli declaration of Independence. The two are linked.

However, RJ, it's not simply about not wanting Israel to exist, it's about the manner of it's creation. In the weeks around the DoI, hundreds of thousands of Arabs left what is now Israel. Some were encouraged by their own side, some of their own accord fleeing successful forces. But many were told to leave by the Haganah/IDF. The largest example of that was the expulsions from Lydda (now called Lod). Of course a prime factor was the panic after Dier Yassin.

The Nakba is about the right of return. For a long time, Arab refugees didn't use the term as it implied finality (ie that they were not going to be able to reclaim their property). It's really only in the last 20 years or so that it has been used. But the reason it's about 1948 and not 1967 is that 1948 was when about 700,000 Arabs were pushed out of Israel, whereas 1967 was a military defeat for various Arab states that didn't involve the same level of civilian upheaval.

Here's the point in the debate where you have to point out that lots of Jews left places in the region and often without being able to sell up. However, that was not the fault of the Palestinian Arabs being evicted from Israel. The Jewish refugees were often housed in the properties that had been vacated by Arabs, but the Arabs who left Israel didn't get the same arrangement. We can argue about the causes and effects and the political aspects of who is to blame, but ultimately, the commemoration is about the events of 1948 as it affects the Arabs who left and their descendants.

Now, there has been some conflation here about the events of the weekend. Firstly, the people who tried to cross borders, or went to the border to protest, were unarmed. The molotov @#$! were in Jerusalem, not at the borders. Secondly, it's only one Arab state that appears to have allowed people to cross the border. Jordan arrested people on the way. Egypt tried to intercept them and about 80 reached the border before being stopped. Lebanon's army came along after the incident there started but moved people back. Similarly, in the West Bank the PA didn't want people to cause trouble at the border. Even the Gazans who were protesting at the border crossing there were being told to move away by Hamas. So it was just Syria. Not all Arab governments are the same (and of course Arabs are not the same as their governments).

This year has two factors that explain an uptick in activity on the day:

1) The wider Arab uprising issue, which has meant people are more likely to protest, and also that Syria is desperate to try and move the focus from their own oppression. While it may appear to you that it would be 'more analogous' for Palestinians to be protesting against the PA, there are two problems with that. Firstly, a lot of Palestinian refugees are not in Palestine, but are in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt.... Secondly, the PA is not a fully sovereign state like the other Arab countries where protests have taken place. A lot of what ires the ordinary Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza is not down to the PA, but to Israel. Or at least that's how they see it.

2) There has been a recent law passed in Israel that is aimed at opposing the Nakba commemorations, and a hardline Zionist group has been agitating against it as a 'lie'. Combined with the government of Israel including people who want a 'loyalty test' for the Arabs living in Israel, the continuing impasse on negotiations (meaning that the right of return is further from being on the table than ever, let alone the rest of the questions around finding a settlement). Palestinians will be being told that this is down to Israeli intransigence.

RJ - by the way, you often bring up that the Israelis see the Arabs as not trustworthy after the past 100 years. Well, guess what? The reverse is true. Israel has breached promises too. At some point someone has to break the cycle, or nothing will change. Why insist that the 'other side' be the ones to do so?

Overall, I agree with this post. I can quibble here or there, (particularly by emphasizing the reasonableness of the Israelis from the 20's to the 60's, and the unreasonableness of the Arabs/Palestinians from the 20's till about 2004), but for the most part I appreciate Danivon's nuanced and complete understanding of the conflict and the events of the last few days.

Thinking big picture, I heard an interview this weekend that left me with an important thought which is that the root of the problem is that 2 peoples have legitimate claims on the same land. We can argue over whose claim is stronger, and each side can try to dismiss the other side's claim, but ultimately both sides have a legitimate claim to the same land, and the same capital.

If you accept that as a given, you also have to wonder whether the 2 sides can live together in peace. We have some hope that they can, and a lot of evidence that they cannot. Randy sees it as 100% the Palestinian's fault. Ricky has suggested 50/50. I believe it is closer to 75/25. In some ways it doesn't matter. The evidence is that the 2 sides cannot live in peace together.

If you are Israeli, and even if you believe that the Palestinian claim has legitimacy, if you also believe that there is no chance for peace (which is more or less the view of the Israeli right), what action makes sense? You may as well take a hard line because there is no 2-state solution. The West Bank is merely a stepping stone to eventually take all of Israel from the Jews. If the Palestinians want the right of return to Israel proper, which they no doubt do (See Abbas's letter in today's New York Times), there is no chance for peace.

As you know, I'm still in the camp of trying to negotiate this with a 2 state solution. I believe in compromise with security. I believe that perhaps the Palestinians can be persuaded that they are better off with 23% of Israel/Palestine (Abbas's % in today's Op Ed) than 0%. I believe in the Israeli's engaging in better PR to demonstrate to the US and Europe that Israel is the reasonable actor in this play. I think that the small chance of an agreement is worth the risk because of the large expected value to peace. But I do understand why many Israelis have given up on the Palestinians.

RJ, thanks. If you were to point out the 'reasonableness' of the israelis from the 20s to the 60s, my response would be 'Deir Yassin' and 'King David Hotel bombing'. Not all Israelis were reasonable, clearly. But it's a sterile debate, I would hope you'd agree.

The West Bank is merely a stepping stone to eventually take all of Israel from the Jews.

To some Arabs, I would agree that is how they see it. Of course, to some Zionists, the current state of Israel is a stepping stone to Eretz Israel.

If the Palestinians want the right of return to Israel proper, which they no doubt do (See Abbas's letter in today's New York Times), there is no chance for peace.

Hmm. Something needs to be done about the large numbers of Palestinian refugees. If they can't go back home, perhaps they can be compensated instead. Perhaps some can be allowed back.

I understand that Israel fears that allowing people to come back would endanger the majority status of Jews in the country. That seems to be the main objection to the Right to Return. But that fear cannot legitimize the act of expulsion.

danivon wrote:

If the Palestinians want the right of return to Israel proper, which they no doubt do (See Abbas's letter in today's New York Times), there is no chance for peace.

Hmm. Something needs to be done about the large numbers of Palestinian refugees. If they can't go back home, perhaps they can be compensated instead. Perhaps some can be allowed back.

I understand that Israel fears that allowing people to come back would endanger the majority status of Jews in the country. That seems to be the main objection to the Right to Return. But that fear cannot legitimize the act of expulsion.

Certainly compensation from the US, Israel, Europe, and wealthy Arab countries is in order. That's always been on the table if the rest can be resolved. The Israelis are comfortable with very limited rights of return (less than 100,000). I could be convinced of something closer to 500,000. But beyond that it is national suicide.

I think that this is where our views diverge. If the fear is well grounded than the Israeli reality is more important than your moral reasoning. There is a national ethic learned through trials and tribulations experienced both in European and Arab lands that being perceived as moral is secondary to being safe. Satisfying your morality (allowing millions of Palestinians to resettle in Israel proper) is a form of national suicide.

And as you predicted, I will now mention that Israel resettled 750,000 Jews from Arab lands. An estimated $200 billion was expropriated by the various Arab and Muslim governments. Why cannot the Arabs resettle a similar number instead of letting them fester along Israel's borders? The population density of Israel is much higher than that of Egypt, and Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, and many other Arab lands. There must be a better solution than Israel sacrificing itself.

RJ

I suspect that it will be added to the Israeli arsenal.

If I were a Palestinian protestor I'd certainly encourage a move to less lethal force. The protest on the Jordanian border resulted in 10 deaths by IDF fire.... I doubt that will stop future protests, so why would less lethal force? (the protestors walked over a known mine field to get to the fence....)
I find it interesting that the Nakba protests received "second page" type coverage in Al JAzeera. In the past, a Palestinian Israelis conflict would have been topp page...
There's so much else going on in the Arab world today that the Palestinian question is now NOT the central issue for Arabs.

danivon wrote:RJ, thanks. If you were to point out the 'reasonableness' of the israelis from the 20s to the 60s, my response would be 'Deir Yassin' and 'King David Hotel bombing'. Not all Israelis were reasonable, clearly. But it's a sterile debate, I would hope you'd agree.

Here's a review of a book by a countryman of yours that I skimmed through last month.

http://www.danielpipes.org/8329/palestine-betrayed

It is very well documented and details the dynamic of the Zionists trying to make peace with the Palestinians in the 20's, 30's and 40's. Although you are right that the Stern gang bombed the King David Hotel and that atrocities were committed at Deir Yassin, I think you will find that the pattern is very different. On the whole, the leaders of the Zionists tried many times to make peace with the Palestinians. And there were of course acts of altruism on the Palestinian side, but on the whole, as this book documents, the actions of their leaders (Palestinian and Arab) were violent and hostile to the Zionists and later the Israelis.

From the review:

Despite the radicalization of Palestinian opinion by the mufti and despite the Nazi rise to power, Zionists kept seeking an accommodation. It took some years, but the mufti's zero-sum policy and eliminationism eventually convinced reluctant Labor leaders, including David Ben-Gurion, that good works would not facilitate their dream of acceptance. Still, despite repeated failures, they continued the search for a moderate Arab partner with whom to strike a deal.

In contrast, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the forerunner of today's Likud party, already in 1923 understood that "there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to 'Palestine' becoming a country with a Jewish majority." Yet even he rejected the idea of expelling Arabs and insisted on their full enfranchisement in a future Jewish state.

This dialectic culminated in November 1947, when the United Nations passed a partition plan that nowadays would be termed a two-state solution. In other words, it handed the Palestinians a state on a silver platter. Zionists rejoiced but Palestinian leaders, foremost the malign Husseini, sourly rejected any solution that endorsed Jewish autonomy. They insisted on everything and so got nothing. Had they accepted the U.N. plan, Palestine would be celebrating its 62nd anniversary this May. And there would have been no Nakba.

That's worth thinking about.

P.S. I picked up the book because I wanted to read something from the Palestinian perspective and thought this would be based on the title.