no palestinian state - no american tax dollars
May 12, 2002 2:28 PM   Subscribe

 
I'm sorry, I can't parse you at all. Was Bush watching the results of this vote with his finger over the 'CUT OFF AID TO ISRAEL' button?
Or is that just the result you think should happen?
posted by darukaru at 2:49 PM on May 12, 2002


"Negotiate from Strength - Surrender Is Weakness" opines that "submission to world opinion and the wishes of the American political establishment is counter-productive."
posted by sheauga at 3:13 PM on May 12, 2002


"A nonpracticing Jewish American who ate breakfast with Yasser Arafat while he was holed up in his Ramallah compound, gave his version of the truth behind the mayhem in the West Bank at UCLA Tuesday ..."
posted by sheauga at 3:20 PM on May 12, 2002


The idea of supporting a government that flatly refuses the idea of a palestinian state is a little problematic for me as american taxpayer.

Would bibi and the likud annex the west bank and gaza and give the palestinians citizens living there full democratic rights and freedom of movement?
posted by specialk420 at 3:22 PM on May 12, 2002


"An incredulous Chris Mathews, host of Hardball, repeatedly gave Armey the opportunity to clarify that he was not calling for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Palestine, but the House Republican chief refused to do so ..."
posted by sheauga at 3:28 PM on May 12, 2002




As Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said, ""The end game is now clear. This war is not against terror but...to continue ruling 3.3 million Palestinians. It is very dangerous and I hope it will be an eye opener to the world to show them who we are dealing with....How many Palestinians will wake up tomorrow to say 'we have nothing to lose'?. I hope it will be an eye-opener to President Bush."
posted by mapalm at 3:46 PM on May 12, 2002


Plan B: All Israelis and Palestinians move to the US, where they will be protected from discrimination based on their national origins. Israel - Palestine placed under National Park Service jurisdiction, with religious shrines protected as part of the National Historic Register.
posted by sheauga at 3:46 PM on May 12, 2002


The idea of supporting a government that flatly refuses the idea of a palestinian state is a little problematic for me as american taxpayer.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
posted by darukaru at 3:53 PM on May 12, 2002


I have not followed Likud actions closely but I believe they want the Palestinians to be under a larger Palestine as it once was ...that is, Jordan, the country that ruled the West Bank till it lost it during the war. Since 50% of Jordan consists of Palestinians, this might make sense. Alas, Jordan does not want the Palestinians and thus does not want back the land it lost.
Likud votes one thing but this does not set policy. America would like a two-state solution. America still has lots of clout. Peaceniks within Israel want two states. EU wants two states.
I favor two states. Hamas, thus far, says it wants no Israeli state, cloaking what they want with the vague reference not to the West Bank but to "occupied Arab lands." No one seems to try to pin down what they mean by Occupied land--all of Israel or just the West Bank?
posted by Postroad at 3:54 PM on May 12, 2002


> plan B

sheauga - you are my hero. the best solution i've heard yet.

thanks for the armey post - that is truely unbelievable... im as shocked as chris matthews - any wonder why the US government is so hated by many in the middle east?
posted by specialk420 at 4:01 PM on May 12, 2002


Postroad: Jordan ruled the West Bank only from 1949 to 1967. In fact, the term "West Bank" didn't even come into existence until 1967. To suggest that millions of Palestinians simply move to Jordan is to deny the close historical and cultural (not to mention religious) ties that Palestinian Arabs have to their land. It also conjures up images of "ethnic cleansing" which some in the US Congress have advocated (see above).

The Likud party's dismissal of the national aspirations of an entire people will only serve to create more frustration, anger, hopelessness and violence.
posted by mapalm at 4:04 PM on May 12, 2002


That was a stupid, dangerous resolution. Hopefully, it will be reversed.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:07 PM on May 12, 2002


I agree with sheauga, although my solution was to take the UN building out of midtown Manhattan and drop it smack into Jerusalem. Put it on the Temple Mount. Leave the Al Aqsa mosque intact, and make it a shrine within the building.

Declare Jerusalem itself the "City of the World" so neither side can have it.

Then let Arafat have his million martyrs, if he feels it's necessary.
posted by swerdloff at 4:10 PM on May 12, 2002


If you actually read the article, the Likud resolution is in favour of palestinian self-rule, just not a full state. Instead of a two state solution, their plan is a 1 and 4/5ths state solution.

Under that plan, the palestinians would have most of the rights of a state. They would have a police force, but no army. Also, Israel would have a certain amound of control over palestinian borders, to prevent weapons from entering. Other than that, the palestinian right to self-rule (after a final settlement) isn't really being rejected.
posted by kickingtheground at 4:19 PM on May 12, 2002


For once, PP, we can clasp hands. Even my Jewish friends in London who went to the rally in Trafalgar Square say that Bibi's media-whoring makes them fear as much for their relatives in Israel as the imminent threat of terrorism. Frankly, I think Bibi's recent behaviour is little short of disgraceful: advancing his own career by mugging to every camera within a 10-mile radius, while being a position not to have to take responsibility for his actions, since he's outside the Knesset right now. As much as I oppose Sharon, it's pretty despicable for him to have that kind of political sniper on the sidelines.

So, does Peres withdraw Labour from the coalition, given that the Likud has essentially drawn its line in the sand?
posted by riviera at 4:28 PM on May 12, 2002


Mapalm: you are correct. Jordan, a new state, had the land we now call the West Bank...got it and could have had a large state but choose instead to join in an attempt to crush Israeli's new state. They controlled Jerusalem (most of it) and would not let Jews use their old holy sites. ) They lost the land when once again they tried to invade--hey, you take a chance and win some and lose some. But that which is now referred to as the West Bank was ruled by Jordan and,if I am not wrong here, overtures had much earlier been made for Jordan to get back this area they once ruled but Jordan turned it down! Did not want to be in charge of so many Palestinians. Likud seems to be saying let Jordan have it and it will be one big Palestinian state.
Of course the Palestinians probably don't want to do this. And I favor a separate Palestinian state if this is what is wanted by the Palestinians. Both sides will have to give and take in order for there to be a peaceful exsistence.
While so many people talk about disspossed Palestinians fleeing the area in '48 (or having been forced out) most do not know about this:
http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/PrinterFull&cid=1020943231754
there is no attempt for a Return here. But there is justice on BOTH sides that needs to be recognized.
posted by Postroad at 5:46 PM on May 12, 2002


Unfortunately these days Bibi seems to have more influence on Capitol Hill than Bush does when it comes to I/P, as Colin Powel recently discovered.
posted by homunculus at 6:10 PM on May 12, 2002


kickingtheground: “the Likud resolution is in favour of palestinian self-rule, just not a full state. Instead of a two state solution, their plan is a 1 and 4/5ths state solution.”

I.e.; a bantustan.
posted by raaka at 6:16 PM on May 12, 2002


raaka: Any palestinian not-quite-state would have a lot more autonomy than any of the bantustans. Heck, even the current PA has more autonomy.

[for the record, both Sharon and Netanyahu are too right-wing for my taste]
posted by kickingtheground at 6:46 PM on May 12, 2002


So, does Peres withdraw Labour from the coalition?...

I hope so; that, coupled with harder US lobbying, might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

On the other hand, it might be the straw that breaks Labour into a political nonentity in the mind of Israeli voters.
posted by Marquis at 8:25 PM on May 12, 2002


"An incredulous Chris Mathews, host of Hardball, repeatedly gave Armey the opportunity to clarify that he was not calling for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Palestine, but the House Republican chief refused to do so ..."
posted by sheauga at 3:28 PM PST on May 12


thanks for the armey post - that is truely unbelievable... im as shocked as chris matthews - any wonder why the US government is so hated by many in the middle east?
posted by specialk420 at 4:01 PM PST on May 12


I'm guessing that neither of you actually read the whole post, and are just trolling for attention. Nowhere in the exchange did Armey call for "ethnic clensing" of the Palestinians (and I just read it twice). And by the way, what do you think the entire Arab world calls for night and day, from preachings in mosques, to the newspaper editorials, to actually strapping bombs to themselves and carrying out this wish.

Grow up and wake up. And stop taking the word of ADC -- which is clearly an anti-semetic group with their own agenda. And, oh yeah, learn to think for yourself.
posted by Rastafari at 8:31 PM on May 12, 2002


With the exception of Rastafari's ravings, this has been a refreshingly level-headed discussion. (Rastafari, I actually saw the show in question, and yes, he did call for ethnic cleansing.) And Postroad, nice to see we can actually talk about stuff, and maybe even (gasp) agree.
posted by mapalm at 9:12 PM on May 12, 2002


For Rastafari's benefit a definition of ethnic cleansing.

ethnic cleansing: the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group from a society, as by genocide, forced migration, and/or forced assimilation.
posted by onegoodmove at 9:28 PM on May 12, 2002


ethnic cleansing n. The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
posted by robcorr at 9:30 PM on May 12, 2002


Damn... beat me to it.
posted by robcorr at 9:31 PM on May 12, 2002


What this shows is more about Israel's political system then any actual policy-- this is the manifestation of extremism when it's operating from a safe and comfortable place. You can imagine if things were reversed we would have Hamas having their political meetings with a call for no Jewish state, just regional autonomy (surrounded by military of course) or some such bullshit.

Basically the extremists get votes by engaging in populist ideas that appeal to a bruised and bloodied population such as no Palestinian state, or assassinate Arafat. It's utterly unhelpful to anyone except for two-bit politicians trying to get their slice of the pie...

But it is an example of why a settlement will have to come from the outside, and will have to be implemented with outside assistance. The people on both sides are just to pissed off/afraid to accomplish anything other than mutual destruction.
posted by chaz at 10:49 PM on May 12, 2002


who's advocating tossing the palestinians out of anywhere? armey's saying that if they want their own state they should have find it somewhere else. that's not ethnic cleansing. nothing's forced. live peacefully under the current government and stop blowing yourselves up and everything's cool. white people who want their own nation are roundly criticized as crazy bigot skinhead klansmen where i come from... it doesn't matter how deep their "roots" and "heritage" runs.
posted by techgnollogic at 1:13 AM on May 13, 2002


techgnologic: If any Serb official made an even slightly similar statement about Kosovo, he would be already in the Hague. The following meets the definition of advocating ethnic cleansing to a doy:

The question here is: What is the future of the Palestinians who are fighting Israel right now? You say there future is somewhere besides Palestine. That runs in the way of US policy going back to 1948. It runs--it runs completely against the president's policy and every policy I've heard a president take, which is that Israel has to give up its settlements on the West Bank and give it back to the Arabs in exchange for peace. You say the deal should be the Palestinians leave?

Rep. ARMEY: That's right. Palestinians say the deal should be the Israel--that--that the Israelis leave.

MATTHEWS: Have you talked about this with the president?

Rep. ARMEY: I happened to believe that the Palestinians should leave.


If this is an accepted policy then what's to stop Turkey and Iraq from telling their Kurdish populations to "leave"? Or The Northern Sudanese to send Christians and animists "someplace else". Indeed, and sorry about the Nazi reference but it is pertinent, the Nazis could have decided that Russia is a German homeland and the Russians that want to have their own country should move somewhere else. Or South Africa could have said that all the blacks in the country could either move someplace else, or simply accept apartheid.
Speaking of S.Africa, the palestinian areas sure look like bantustans to me.
In other news the NYT suggest that Hamas suicide bombers might be "targeting" Arafat as well.
posted by talos at 4:34 AM on May 13, 2002


Speaking of S.Africa, the palestinian areas sure look like bantustans to me.

The whole bantustan term is a little esoteric for most Americans; maybe we should choose a more domestic reference and call them reservations.

As for the main topic, this is a horrible, depressing, misguided action, but (don't you hate those buts?) the PLO charter still calls for the ethnic cleansing of Israel, despite Arafat's agreement to drop those sections at Oslo (and again (sorta) in the Wye River Accord). So there you have it; the Israeli right-wing is now on the record as being almost as intransigent and hateful as the Palestinian left-wing. Almost.
posted by boaz at 8:04 AM on May 13, 2002


Boaz. That is just plain wrong. The charter has been changed.
posted by mapalm at 8:15 AM on May 13, 2002


Actually you're wrong, mapalm, which a few seconds of research would have shown you. The PLO has voted to change it, but has not actually changed it.
posted by boaz at 8:26 AM on May 13, 2002


Not so sure about that boaz, one could argue that it has effectively been changed since 1998:
Delegates at the meeting reaffirmed with a simple show of hands that the clauses in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel were null and void.
However I am aware that Israel is not content with this de facto change of the PLO covenant. Hopefully this too will be promptly settled despite the inherent difficulties (somewhat dated link but relevant).
posted by talos at 8:45 AM on May 13, 2002


Talos, you beat me to it...that was what I was (unsuccessfully) looking for.
posted by mapalm at 8:50 AM on May 13, 2002


Let me be clear: they agreed to change it (twice); they voted to change it (twice); they never changed it, which you can verify simply by reading the copy available at any of hundreds of internet sites. Calling it a de facto change is 180 degrees off; it's a de facto non-change covered up by a supposed de jure change.
posted by boaz at 9:02 AM on May 13, 2002


The Likud vote was unfortunate. But the PA, or its replacement has so far to go to merit autonomy, that it doesn't really matter. IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:25 AM on May 13, 2002


"It just doesn't matter?" Quite a pompous thing to say to 3.5 million people who have been yearning for (and periodically promised) national sovereignty.

It actually DOES matter, very much, to many people.
posted by mapalm at 1:45 PM on May 13, 2002


Sorry to get in late on the Armey thing, but it really deserves some discussion: the anti-West propaganda in the Arab world is already full of enough horrible conspiracy lies (like "all the Jews who worked in the WTC called in sick", "Atta and the other men were not hijackers but simple passengers victims of a CIA plot", etc etc).
It's really amazing that Armey gave the extremists, the Osama fans, an actual autentic transcript to use to demonstrate that America wants to exterminate all Arabs therefore all Arabs must defend themselves and strike America first.
I can't see what he's going to accomplish. I mean, someone explain the Impeachment Men that we're not talking anymore about DNA stains and cigars and Matt Drudge and grand jury X-rated material published on the Internet to get a political opponent to resign.
This is not a vulgar soap opera like what passed for politics these last few years in the US, it's serious stuff where many people got killed already and many more will in the future.
The Middle East is already a big mess. We don't need statements like that to complicate it further
posted by matteo at 4:48 PM on May 13, 2002


It actually DOES matter, very much, to many people.

The majority of whom are in denial as to the depraved state of the Arab world. Palestinians will get their state when they deserve it/when it will not be a forward camp for destroying Israel. Whether that's in five, or fifty or five hundred years is largely up to the Arab world, not Israel. And since the timeline is likely in the 5-50 year range, what the Likud declares today JUST DOESN'T MATTER.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:13 PM on May 13, 2002


You're such a bore, Paris.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:16 PM on May 13, 2002


Like, you're not?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:18 PM on May 13, 2002


Like, you're not?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:19 PM on May 13, 2002


haha paris... :)

.. when are we going to start realizing that we are all brothers and sisters on a very small - very fragile planet ... acceptance and peace seems like it is the core of the teachings in the bible, torah and koran - ... why is it the part first forgotten?
posted by specialk420 at 9:37 PM on May 13, 2002


The first step to recognizing that we must love out brothers and sisters is recognizing and accepting that some of them have gone astray and/or are being mislead and/or are wrong. Peace does not mean ignoring or rationalizing depravity. It means defeating it through persuasion, education, and if necessary, war.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:43 PM on May 13, 2002


Palestinians will get their state when they deserve it

It's funny but I've never heard of a nation ever getting its independence by "deserving" it (the usual process is to fight like hell for it).
posted by lagado at 6:02 AM on May 14, 2002


Well, since Palestinians already have Jordan, a second one is on the geo-political level of a perk. So that have to deserve it.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:15 AM on May 14, 2002


(They have fought like "hell" for it, with Yasser their devil. And thankfully, said devil is impotent. And Israel refuses to have a despotic, tyrant-run, gun-ordered hell on its borders. So it's time to reform and try a new, non-depraved strategy)
posted by ParisParamus at 6:18 AM on May 14, 2002


([Correction: Israel refuses to promote or cooperate in the establishment of a state of the aforementioned character.])
posted by ParisParamus at 6:38 AM on May 14, 2002


When they deserve it?
Geez, Paris, you really are a bore. And rather pompous at that.
posted by mapalm at 8:15 AM on May 14, 2002


I bore, therefore I sting.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:11 PM on May 14, 2002


« Older   |   Lines & Splines goes the way of hot-metal type Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments