Hi Roger, Platt, Darryl, Rob, Miguel, Gav, Gert, Harry (what a long list
!!!),
...as to Squonk, I'm not even going to comment on his outrageous "rhetorical
questions".
First to Rog and Platt - thanks for your words of support. I appreciate the
comradery of this group.
As for arguments on individual points, I'll leave that till the end of this
post, because I first want to present my own understanding of very recent
history.
ROB> Sorry Jonathan, the occupation will only lead to
> more desperation and death, the anger you have is fealt on the other side
of
> the border as well, the more loved ones that are lost
I couldn't agree more, and I think that many (perhaps most) Israelis agree.
The problem is not the IF but the HOW. I am about the only person I know who
still believes that the "Oslo" approach was a good idea.
In 1993, Israel decided to recognise the Palestinian national leadership
(the PLO) thereby starting a process most people believed would lead to
Palestinian statehood. Coming after years of bitterness and violence, this
took a tremendous leap of faith. When one take a leap like that, it is a
good idea to take a good run-up, and then leap without hesitating and
without looking down!!!
What actually happened was that there was a good deal of hesitation - in my
view partly due to the unexpected gusts of opposing wind (the horrific bus
bombings of 1994 and 1995). Thus, I think that Israel's leap was aborted
before it really started - leaving us hanging by the fingers on the same
side of the chasm where we started. I can still see the green pastures on
the other side. I can visualize peaceful coexistance with a Palestinian
state. However, the chasm looks frighteningly wide right now. Personally,
I'd like to believe that we can make it safely across, but as Roger always
says, I could be wrong!!!!!! So what should I say to my compatriots - follow
me?
Now on to some answers to specific points.
DARRYL says
>I don't know if you're aware of it, but Israel is a functional
>theocracy and the only ones who get to participate fully are the Jews.
This is malicious rubbish. Israel has a democratic parliament and a fiercely
independent judiciary. Non Jewish Israelis (~20% of the population)
participate in both with full rights and representation. I can't claim a
complete absence of discrimination, but IMO the only seriously
underrepresented group is women (and even then, Israel does a lot better
than many Western countries).
DARRYL also says
>Israel is using its military might, supplied by the
>United States, to kill people. This is a simple fact.
The son of close friends was injured in Jenin on Tuesday - fortunately not
seriously. If Israel's main aim was simply to kill Palestinians, he wouldn't
even have been there. It would be much easier and more effective to use F16s
to simply obliterate Jenin. Israel's failure to flatten Jenin, Ramallah,
etc. does not reflect military incompetence; it reflects a genuine attempt
to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties. I've heard reports of hundreds
of Palestinian deaths and my bet is that only a handful of those were women
and children. Does anyone have comparable figures for the attacks on Iraq,
Serbia and Afghanistan?
MIGUEL and DARRYL provided different non-contradictory views of the history
(which also fit with my own historical sketch from 2 days ago). Darryl's
history (from the Internet) appears correct, but is incomplete:
>. .. the right of the British Empire to scrape out a country from a land
> where people are already living is questionable at best. While I have not
> done research on the time, my recollection of the actions of the Jews in
> creating Israel is that they were not particularly gentle.
Peaceful Jewish immigration began during the 19th century - long before
Britain was involved. By the start of the 20th century, Jerusalem had a
Jewish majority. Jewish paramilitary forces came into existance much later,
in response to organized Arab violence against the Jews.
Britain never had any "God-given" right to determine the future of
Palestine, and the views of His/Her Majesty's government have long ceased to
be relevant.Britain forcibly took Palestine from the Turks in 1917. She was
later granted the mandate to govern Palestine by the League of Nations,
later superceded by the United Nations. The UN partition resolution of 1947
terminated the mandate. In retrospect, Britain's "haphazard" withdrawal from
Palestine in 1948, and her military support for the Arab League look like a
deliberate attempt to thwart the implentation of the UN partition decision.
Finally to GAV - I did skim through Chomsky (perhaps too quickly), but I
still reject the implication that it is all up to the USA.
>US (alone) vetos every UN resolution on israel/palestine. there is a reason
>why the official policy of the US since kissinger has been to perpetuate
>'stalemate' on this question. there is a reason why israel receives
billions
>of US dollars in 'aid'.
>think
UN resolutions are often synical and some of them have been downright
embarassing. I think that the voting patterns of most members are seldom
dictated by ethical considerations. IMO opinion, the UN has become more
respected in recent years because the degree of synicism is much less than
during the cold-war days.
I do NOT believe that Kissinger was trying to perpetuate a stalemate -
actually he succeeded in breaking one ( Israel-Egypt). The subsequent peace
agreement (Camp David) is the main reason why both Israel and Egypt both
receive massive US financial aid (to put it synically, Carter bought both
Begin and Sadat).
Have a peaceful weekend eveyone.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:10 BST