When Condoleeza Rice visited and met with Palestinian President Abbas and Israeli government leaders recently, in the context of daily Israeli incursions into Gaza and regular in-fighting between Fatah and Hamas militants, she talked a lot about peace and helping the Palestinians, promising to "redouble" efforts to improve Palestinian living conditions. However, most Palestinians knew the real reason for her visit - to convey U.S. support to Abbas and Fatah.
She met with Abbas in Ramallah, where she expressed "great admiration" for his leadership and promised him the "strong commitment of the United States". Then, quite amazingly, it was announced that the U.S. would allocate $26 million to "expand" Abbas' Presidential guard from 3,500 to 6,000 men. At a time when the Palestinians seem to be moving ever closer to a civil war, it is obvious what this means.
Then, yesterday, the U.S. "quietly started a campaign" to bolster Hamas' political opponents in the event of an upcoming election, expected to cost up to $46 million (a lot of money in the Occupied Territories - more than three times the amount spent by the main parties and candidates in the January election.) "'This project supports (the) objective to create democratic alternatives to authoritarian or radical Islamist political options,' one official U.S. document obtained by Reuters said."
U.S. Consul General Jacob Walles said, "We are not promoting any particular party. In fact, we will work with any party as long as it is not affiliated with a terrorist organisation". Now, there are some problems with this. First, it's a flagrant lie. As I've already said, the U.S. has allocated $26 million specifically to expand President Abbas' Presidential Guards. Then there's the fact that Fatah is linked to a terrorist group, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. The al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades are Fatah's military wing. Since the U.S. and Israel consistently fail to distinguish between the political and military wings of Hamas, there is no way they can justify doing so for Fatah. So in other words the U.S. government is, in effect, funding a terrorist organisation and so, under Bush law, they should be disappeared to Guantanamo Bay.
Article comments
1 - Franco
OK, so "bottom line", what do you suggest!
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Yeah Jamie,
You've spent sixteen paragraphs analysing what you believe the problem is. How would you get us from the "here" that you dislike to the "there" that you have not yet defined?
More to the point, how would you redress the tremendous damage the Arabs have suffered from the fourteen years of the
OlsoAslá (toilet) Plan so that they arrive at a viable, self sufficient, prosperous state of their own?3 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Well, firstly, I don't have to come up with an alternative in order to point out that what's happening is wrong.
But, as it happens, I agree with the majority of the world about what should happen. There should be a two-state settlement, based roughly on international law (that is, the Palestinians get E. Jerusalem and an independent state on 100% of Gaza and the West Bank apart from "mutual" and "minor" adjustments, the right of refugees to return is recognised by Israel, and as a gesture several hundred thousands of the 5-6 million should be allowed to return). Incidentally, through the Arab League proposal, this would also entail peace with the entire region.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
You know, Jamie, a monkey can drive a car forward. It takes some brains to drive it backwards. Similarly, any idiot can "point out what is wrong", from whatever view he chooses. It takes imagination to figure out a really workable solution. That is what I work hard at.
There should be a two-state settlement, based roughly on international law (that is, the Palestinians get E. Jerusalem and an independent state on 100% of Gaza and the West Bank apart from "mutual" and "minor" adjustments, the right of refugees to return is recognised by Israel, and as a gesture several hundred thousands of the 5-6 million should be allowed to return). Incidentally, through the Arab League proposal, this would also entail peace with the entire region.
That's all very nice. You make a pro forma attempt at a solution by parroting what the Saudis say to the west. But I repeat. How do you redress the tremendous damage the Arabs have suffered from the fourteen years of the Olso Aslá (toilet) Plan so that they arrive at a viable, self sufficient, prosperous state of their own?!
The territory you are talking about that is supposed to be a "Palestinian" state is not much bigger than some of the smaller counties in England - roughly 2,000 square miles. How do you build an economy that is self sufficient? Do you unite this territory with Jordan to give it viability? Let's see something practical out of the leftist Jewish finger-wagging intellectual from London. Arabs will want to dip their pita in something more substantial than your elevated sense of righteousness, you know.
5 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Really, a 'monkey',eh? Because in the past, you've been completely unable to 'point out what is wrong', finding it impossible to look past Palestinian terrorism and the security needs of Israel.
But it's good that you've got past that.
"That's all very nice. You make a pro forma attempt at a solution by parroting what the Saudis say to the west. But I repeat. How do you redress the tremendous damage the Arabs have suffered from the fourteen years of the Olso Aslá (toilet) Plan so that they arrive at a viable, self sufficient, prosperous state of their own?! "
If you mean help beyond that, then of course Israel should pour money into developing the Palestinian economy, provide jobs and so forth. It's difficult to redress for past injustices, except by saying sorry, but in terms of trade and investment Israel could be a lot of help to a new Palestinian state.
But listen. The Palestinians want a state, and they are legally entitled to one. That's why they should have one. Once all Palestinians legal rights, including to an 'independent' Palestinian state (i.e. no Jordan, no Israel, no anyone - an independent state, if that's what they want, and they do), have been respected, there should be no problem. Certainly, the matter of providing help after the state is set up is a completely different problem, one that is unconnected, from the one we face today, i.e. to set up a state in the first place.
Arabs don't want to 'dip their pita' in anything. They've made clear what they want, and it's as I've outlined above. I don't know why you characterise it as 'what the Saudis say to the west' - no, its what international law and the majority of world public opinion demands, and wha must be respected. What you speak of comes after. (I think Israel should pay reparations for the damage its caused, for example).
6 - Mark Schannon
Jamie, I'd love to see the Palestinians get their own state but if you return to the pre-67 borders, you've got an Israel that, at its most narrow is about 15 miles across. You've got a bifurcated, corrupt, completely dispirted Arab population that's supposed to make sense out of a hodgepodge of a country?
And the right of return is simply the death knell of Israel and you know that. Israel is a Jewish state. When the Muslims outnumber the Jews, it will no longer be a Jewish state.
Jordon was supposed to be the Palestinian's homeland--they were (and may still be in the majority) but the Hashemites didn't like the idea of giving up power, so they threw them out in a bloody war. Since the whole stupid area was carved up after WWI, why not just carve it up again. If the Arabs are so adamant about peace, they certainly wouldn't mind giving up a piece of their terrority for the Palestinians, would they?
And of course, the Palestinian National Covenant would have to be amended to stop calling for the destuction of Israel. And Hezbollah would have to be disarmed.
You try so hard to simplify this issue. It's complex beyond rational capacity for thought. I don't know if I have an answer or not unless someone made me supreme rule of all the land there--but I know enough not to simplisticly blame Israel for all the problems there.
In Jameson Veritas
7 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
"but if you return to the pre-67 borders, you've got an Israel that, at its most narrow is about 15 miles across."
That's true. But you've also got an Israel with the fourth raning military in the world, and a Palestinian state with a few homemade rockets. More importantly, while it is unrealistic to expect all the terror groups to vanish instantly, most Palestinians are in favour of a two-state settlement based on the law. Once this is achieved, they'll have no reason to send their sons to kill themselves, and no reason to kill Israeli civilians and unnecessarily bring on themselves devastating retaliation. They will simply want to get on with their lives and making a successful Palestine. Groups like Islamic Jihad will become isolated in their communities, indeed, hated if they don't stop, recruitment will dry up, and they will cease to be a problem.
To quote the words of a former Israeli foreign minister: 'Israel has as much to fear from a Palestinian state as the Soviet Union does from Luxembourg.'
As Norman Finkelstein expanded on that, presumably those who feel Israel has a right to occupy based on 'security fears' also supported the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, because undoubtedly Aghanistan was more of a security threat to the Soviet Union than Luxembourg was.
No, this isn't about security. Security is just a cover used sometimes by Israel to justify the perpetuation of the occupation. Its a common trick; how many times has the U.S used it to justify an aggression? Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, etc. etc.
"You've got a bifurcated, corrupt, completely dispirted Arab population that's supposed to make sense out of a hodgepodge of a country?"
'Dispirited'? Why would they be 'dispirited', after having achieved what they've been fighting for for 40 years?
Of course, it is in everyone's interests that Israel should invest heavily to develop the Palestinian state, as should (and would) the Arab states. Israel should also pay reparations.
But, assuming the Palestinians get fair access to water and resources, they'll be fine. In any event, how to run a successful Palestinian state is a separate question from 'should we establish a Palestinian state?', because the answer to the second one has to be a yes, because the law demands it.
"If the Arabs are so adamant about peace, they certainly wouldn't mind giving up a piece of their terrority for the Palestinians, would they?"
Firstly, history has shown that they would - Arab governments have been more concerned about using the Palestinian cause to bolster their own popularity or to attack Israel than they have been with Palestinian welfare.
But that's completely beside the point. The Palestinians want a state on the West Bank and Gaza. They are legally entitled to a state on the West Bank and Gaza. Thus, they must have a state on the West Bank and Gaza. That's it.
(Incidentally - I don't hear you arguing that the Europeans should be happy to make room for the Jews, and so the Jews should all leave Israel and move to Europe. That's the exact same argument you used for the Palestinians, the occupied people, and its not serious.)
"And of course, the Palestinian National Covenant would have to be amended to stop calling for the destuction of Israel. And Hezbollah would have to be disarmed."
Hizbullah is a Lebanese national movement, completely separate from the Palestinians, except that they,, like Arab governments, have tried to associate themselves with the Palestinian cause to increase credibility.
As to the Covenant - well, that isn't a precondition, but of course if in the negotiations for the final state the Palestinians saw that their legal rights were being upheld, there would be no reason to hold on to that pledge. In any event, even if it was kept for a while, nothing would be done about it - the Palestinian people would not tolerate any foolish action that would threaten to bring a return to the status quo ante.
"You try so hard to simplify this issue. "
The issue is complex, and I would never try to over-simplify it. What the law says is simple, and the law must be upheld.
"but I know enough not to simplisticly blame Israel for all the problems there."
Of course Israel shouldn't get the blame for everything. It isn't good guy vs. bad guy. But currently, as the aggressor, the oppressor, the occupier and the willing roadblock to peace, Israel deserves most of the blame. It is surely not right to go after the occupied people, practically defenceless against this foreign military power which continues to expand its illegal occupation, arbitrarily launches 'raids' which kill militants and civilians daily and is in the process of strangling the Palestinian economy to death. Of course, we must criticise the Palestinians when they use terrorism, or when they miss an opportunity for progress, or whatever. But fundamentally, they are an occupied people resisting, and Israel is an occupier, fighting to perpetuate the occupation.
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jamie,
You are an outstanding fiction writer. The world you describe is a wonderful one - of your own imagination. You still haven't supplied a basic answer to the issue of making a viable Arab state in the region that would give a home with prosperity to them.
When the goyim pay us for having made our lives meserable for 1,700 years - a good $1.5 trillion should do it - then we can talk about Israelis paying reparations - even though they are not owed. That is no solution.
There is a world of difference between a two state solution and a viable two state solution. We have already seen what a "Palestinian" state in Judea and Samaria would look like - it would be a bigger version of a Gaza slum, firing missiles at Israel trying to get more land. It cannot be a viable state. Anyone with any money or initiative has alerady fled. Nobody likes living under the mob, Jamie, and the PLO was nothing more than an Israeli imposed mafia.
Hamas is the branch office of the Moslem Brotherhood, but it was nurtured inot growth by the Shabak to weaken the PLO. When elections were held in January, the Arabs I spoke to were angry that this was their choice - an Israeli nurtured Shariastan or an Israeli imposed mafia. This is the shit you propose as supposedly acceptable - an unviable state governed either by the Hamas, shoving the burqa and slavery down women's lives, or a mafia of thieves and rapists. Wow, let's hear it for international law. Clap clap!!
Given that 70% or more of the population of Jordan consists of South Syrian Arabs, the logical solution is either what I suggest above or what Dave suggests in comment #40. That is two states - one for Jews and one for Arabs - in the territory allotted by the League of Nations for the Palestine Mandate. Until the League disbanded, the Emirate of Transjordan was part of the Palestine Mandate - a fact that you, playing at being the great moralist, see fit to ignore. I guess all international law is not equal, eh? Some international laws are more equal than others, huh? Kind of like Napoleon the Pig in "Animal Farm".
This is why I generally do not waste my time on "international law." My toilet paper is worth more.
9 - Jamie Stern-Weiner
Well, you can see my answer on the other discussion. The first thing to note is that the question of how to make a Palestinian state viable is completely separate from whether or not to establish one at all, because the second 'question' has already been answered - by law, the Palestinians have a right to establish a state on the West Bank and Gaza.
Secondly, an independent Palestinian state would not be like Gaza, for the simple reason that, unlike Gaza, it would be independent.