There are two 'provactions' going on between the West Bank Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. They lead to different results in world opinion. I wonder why?
Israel has continued its wretched building the West Bank, with homes approved 8 years ago (and you thought English bureaucracy was bad) but that is sabotaging the peace process.
But, when a Jerusalem Arab kills 8 students (7 of them 18 or under) everyone declares how the peace process must continue.
Which is the bigger provocation?
Forgetting who is right and wrong in this issue (and for now it is important to) why is building housing in already existing settlements (actually more like cities; settlements makes you think of the wild west) worse than violating territorial sovereignty and murdering 8 students within land that is completely undisputed?
Showing posts with label peace process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace process. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Thursday, 29 November 2007
A Necessary Precondition
There has been a lot of hullabaloo directed at Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's recent demand that any negotiations with the Palestinians be only on the basis of recognition that Israel is Jewish state. Some think that this demand is absolutely right, and others think it was a tactical mistake. A more 'extreme' position was that of PA negotiator Saeb Ekrat, who declared that no nation has ever linked religion to the state. Never mind that the offical PLO charter does, and that 'Jewish State' is more of an ethnic than religious statement.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
I was honestly puzzled about who was right on this issue. It seems crystal clear that Israel is, in fact, a Jewish state. Aside from its own declaration of independence declaring such, both the British Mandate, as well as UN resolution 181 recognize it as such. At the same time, who cares what others may say? Israel needs to learn to stop begging everyone else to be let into the neighborhood, and realize that it has already moved in. Such a demand reeks of the pathetic self doubt that already stereotypes Jews. If you need a prime example of such a Jew, look no further than Woody Allen.
However, I think that Olmert was certainly right on this matter and not because he is bargaining now from a higher position, nor because he throws cogs into the wheels of negotiation. Rather, he is right because to assent to anything less would be to allow hypocrisy.
The stated goal of Israel, at least since Olmert took office, is the creation of a Palestinian state. Much as Gola Meir recognized, on the eve of partition in 1947, nationalism for the Jews (Zionism) requires an equal respect towards the nationalism of all other countries, specifically the Palestinians. I iterated this position to a member of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement two nights ago, and was shocked to hear her reply. I suppose I am still stuck in the 'liberals are liberal to all' misconception.
What did she say? She claimed that while it is true on the part of the Jews, it is not true on the part of the Palestinians. The Zionists must, a priori, recognize Palestinian nationalism, but Palestinian nationalist need not recognize Zionism. According to this individual, Jews are required to be universalists, whereas Palestinians are allowed to remain particularists. Holy double standard Batman!
What claims, exactly, do Palestinians have that supercede those of the Jews? That they were there first? Well, the Jews were there well before the Palestinians were. That the Jews were colonialists? And the Arab invaders who swept by the sword of Muhammed were not? That Palestinians, at one time, lived in the entire land? Well, so did the Jews. The Jews are not an easily definable people? And the Palestinians are?
Whatever claim one may make to highlight the supposed superiority of the Palestinian position can be met quid pro quo from the Jewish side. So what gives? Why is it that those who support Palestinian nationalism don't think that they need to support Jewish nationalism?
I think the answer can be found in what occurred during the recent Annapolis meetings. These meetings were set up to restart the peace process, and presumably an air of peace would be a necessary precondition for confidence and trust. But no such air was to be found.
Prior to the meeting, a Bahrainian MP demanded that the FM of Bahrain was his hands after shaking hands with Israeli FM Tzipi Livni.
"I meant Tzipi is dirty and Shaikh Khalid, who is clean, should purify his hands," said MP Nasser Al Fadhala in a statement."
As well, Saudi Prince Faisal snubbed Israeli leaders and refused to even shake their hands. As anyone who follows the links will note, the website reporting these are Arab, and thus not part of a 'Zionist conspiracy.' Tzipi was only able to set up a meeting with Jordan, who Israel already has full ties with.
Indeed,
On his part, Frans Timmermans, the Dutch Minister for European Affairs, said Livni told Arab foreign ministers to stop treating her as a pariah. "They shun her like she is Count Dracula's younger sister," he was quoted as saying.
Remind me again what the purpose of the peace process is?
However, this highlights the reasoning behind that Palestinian supporter in her claim that Palestinian nationalists need not support Zionism: an utter lack of respect of the other side.
The context of the Israeli 'demand' should be supported, not because Israeli desperately need to be recognize and affirmed, but because the principle foundation of peace- mutual recognition of each side- is non-negotiable.
Olmert has conceded such respect to the Palestinians, when he recognized the suffering that Israel has caused them. The Palestinians, and their supporters, need to do the same.
That is, except for the hypocrites.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Timely news
The Canadian National Post is reporting that new information is to be released regarding the Jewish refugees from Arab Lands. Never heard of them? See here for a good start. They are planning to use this information to pressure Abbas to drop the right of return from the agenda at the upcoming Annapolis conference. What new information? Simply put-
New research shows there was Arab inter-state "collusion" to
persecute Jews in Arab countries after Israel's creation, former federal justice
minister Irwin Cotler and Jewish rights scholars will announce today in New
York.
Yet another example of the guilty placing their guilt on others- aside from an isolated incident, Jewish leaders continually asked the Arabs dwelling in Palestine not to leave. Yes, many of them left because of the war- but they weren't driven out like the Jews were.
As well, many members of the Arab league have met in Syria to discuss the continuation of their economic boycott of Israel. Oh, you did not know that? You thought it was only the evil Israel who did naughty stuff? Oops. Anyhow, with Fayyad making loads of demands from Israel to encourage the Peace Process, why don't the Arabs follow in suit?
Either way, it's easy to see how parties are using information to manipulate the peace process. I wonder, if I bothered for more than five minutes, how many other examples I could find?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
