[Techtalk] [OFF TOPIC] Huge misconceptions about Israel/policy (was: NOT Moving to Europe)

caitlynmaire at earthlink.net caitlynmaire at earthlink.net
Mon Sep 29 10:09:40 EST 2003



-----Original Message-----
From: "Rudy L. Zijlstra" <rudy at edsons.demon.nl>
Sent: Sep 29, 2003 8:43 AM
To: Julie <txjulie at austin.rr.com>
Cc: Maria Blackmore <mariab at cats.meow.at>, techtalk at linuxchix.org
Subject: Re: [Techtalk] NOT Moving to Europe (WAAAY offtopic!)


Rudy:

I am going to forgive your uninformed post largely because of the
incredible anti-Israel bias in the BBC and some other European
media.  (I say some because there is very good European media as
well that genuinely tries to show both sides.)

> This though, does not give a right to behave to others as badly as 
> others have to them.

...and Israel is doing that how?  In 2000 Israel offered the Palestinians
91% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, shared sovereignty over
Jerusalem, and a limited "right of return" for refugees (limited numbers to 
reunite families, compensation for the rest).  Many prominent Palestinians,
including Mahmoud Abbas, urged Yasser Arafat to take this deal as the 
best the Palestinians would ever get.  It was, of course, rejected.  Both 
then President Clinton and US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross placed
100% of the blame for the failureat Camp David on Yasser Arafat.

The Palestinian response was to start a war with Israel deliberately.  They
used a visit by then opppostion leader Ariel Sharon as an excuse despite 
the fact that the visit was approved by the Muslim Waqf, a Palestinian-run
religious organization that has jurisidction over the Temple Mount.  The
Palestinians have since admitted that this was a "strategic decision", not a
spontaneous reaction.  Despite that Prime Minister Barak returned to the
negotiating table while Israelis were under fire at Taba.

At Taba the Palestininians were offered 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza,
sovereignty over Arab sections of East Jerusalem, including the Old City 
with the exception of the Jewish Quarter and shared sovereignty over the
Temple Mount, and compensatory land in the Negev to replace what they
were losing along the Green Line.  This was land taken from the pre-1967
borders of Israel.  Yasser Arafat declared this "insufficient" and Palestinian
Information Minister Yasser Abbed Rabo declared that the Palestinians would
not compromise on even one centimeter of land.

I will remind you that the pre-1967 borders are not internationally recognized,
but rather are an armistice line where the armies stopped fighting in 1949.
The only internationally recognized border between a then proposed Jewish
state and the Arab part of Palestine was the 1919 treaty between Great 
Britian and the Hashemite king of Transjordan and Iraq, which set the border 
at the Jordan River.  Moshe Dayan, Israel's Defense Minister in 1967 called
the Green Line the "Auschwitz Line" because it was indefensible.  Keeping 3%
of land for defensive reasons after so many wars and offering compensatory
land seems just to me.

> No matter how badly you have been treated and / or betrayed, doing this 
> to others [in retribution?] will only increase the trouble. Go check 
> your history books yet again....

Israel does not deliberately target innocent civillians as the Palestinians do.
They do not send suicide bombers to blow up a teen disco, family restaurants,
a bus returning from worship at a holy site, and so on.  They do not arm
young children and then claim the other side is killing innocents.

> Viewing 
> yourself as the victim, and the other as a barbarian (combining the 2 
> views for a moment) leads to a worldview where own actions are always 
> acceptable.

Have you ever even been to Israel?  How many Israelis do you know?  
What percentage holds such a view?  What is your basis for assuming this
to be the Israeli viewpoint?

> This irrespective of the objective criteria that can be 
> used.

What objective criteria are YOU using?

> The others will never be viewed as a possible companion: a 
> barabarian is untrustworthy.

I think most Israelis do not view the Palestinians as a whole as
barbarians.  I think they view the Palestinian *leadership* under
Yasser Arafat as unwilling to acknowledge Israel's right to 
exist as a Jewish state and as incapable of making peace.  There
is a huge difference.

> The net result is you both become partners in crime, the crime being 
> mutual hate.

You are equivocating Palestinian actions and Israeli actions.  There is
no moral equivalence.  One side, despite being at war, has 
overwhelming military might which it restrains to the extreme, and
it restricts its actions to reduce civillian casualties.  The other side,
though very weak by comparison, uses terrorism and deliberately 
targets civillians.  There is no justification for suicide bombings.

The Palestinians call again and again for the Road Map to be 
implemented.  Fine.  Let's implement it.  Paragraph one, sentence one:
the first step is for the Palestinians to put a stop to terrorism and
fight terrorists.  Pretty hard to do when you have a terrorist in 
charge who has no interest in step one.

My cousin Yossi and his family live in Alfei Menashe, in Samaria.  It is
nine miles from the sea in a place where pre-1967 Israel is seven 
miles wide.  Yossi was the administrator of the town before the
first intifada, and before the town was large enough to have an 
elected mayor.  He was close friends with the muchtar (mayor) of the
nearby Palestinian village.  He and his family went to the muchtar's
home for Islamic festivals, and they visited during Jewish holidays.  The
two families were close.  They would shop together in the Arab market
in Qalqilya.

When the first intifada started the muchtar and half his family were 
murdered for being "too friendly" to the Israelis.  Fences went up 
around Alfei Menashe.

On a clear day if you stand on the east side of town you can see from 
Haifa in the north, down the coast to Hadera, Netanya, Herzliya, Tel
Aviv, Jaffa, and all the way to Ashdod in the south.  That's 70% of 
Israel's population.  Before 1967 the hill upon which Alfei Menashe
stands was a Jordanian gun emplacement.  It was used to rain death
down upon Israelis.  Should this be returned?  Under what conditions?

On a beautiful Shabbat (Saturday) in 1997 I stood on the west side of 
town at the fence that divides Alfei Menashe from the Palestinians with
Yossi and his wife Chaya.  I asked Yossi if he would give up his home 
for peace.  His answer:  "Of course, no question."  He looked down at 
the Palestinians working in the fields below and almost started to cry.
He started pointing and naming them.  "This is the muchtar's family"
he said.  "They're people just like us.  All they want is to live in peace."

Those were the sentiments of an Israeli settler in the West Bank. 
Clue:  despite what the BBC would have you believe, that is the
predominant view.  The extremists in ideological settlements deep
inside the territories are a small number, less than 10%.  Most live
along the Green Line in towns setup to defend Israel proper or in 
suburbs of Jerusalem.  This is the 3% Ehud Barak wanted to keep.

Huge clue:  What are the policy differences between the Barak
government and the Sharon government vis a vis the Palestinians.
You know, I couldn't tell you because I don't see any.  I watch news
from Israel in Hebrew every night, I listen to these two leaders talk,
and I hear them saying exactly the same things in different words.

Most Israelis want peace.  Most Palestinians want peace.  The difference
is that most Israelis are free to express their desires.  They are also
free to express their disillusionment and their distrust of the Palestinian
desire for peace.  The desire is there, but to express it publicly is
tantamount to commiting suicide if you are Palestinian.

So yes... my cousin now supports Ariel Sharon.  So do I, though I 
have traditionally supported Meretz or Avodah (Labor).

b'shalom,
Caitlyn (in English) or Chana (in Hebrew)


More information about the Techtalk mailing list