Greetings, Roger,
I appreciate your openness to discussion, and respond below.
I am putting a list of readings together and will post it here when done. I
will be interested in your thoughts on the list itself, as well as the items
that you look at.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 11:47 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Middle East Bias -- A Test
>
>
> Lawry, I would be quite interested in your less-biased middle
> east reading
> list. Note that the list of "facts" was in no way intended to be
> unbiased.
> I intentionally only included statements that I thought those
> accusing the
> other side of Orwellian brainwashing would possibly take
> exception too. I
> was listing out the most biased "facts," to open them up to critical
> discussion. The goal is not to win an argument or to establish
> moral high
> ground, it is to understand the issues and help solve them. (and
> note that my
> "solutions" have gotten very little disagreement from either
> side, and even
> some praise from the pro-Palestine side)
>
> You have been exemplary in your response.
>
>
> 1. Which people cheered on the streets on 9/11?
> a) Israelies
> b) *Palestinians*
>
> L:
> Actually, it turned out that this was footage of anotehr event, on file,
> and that it started being shown in conjunction with 9/11. But I
> was taken in
> at the time, too.
>
> R:
> I have surfed the net extensively on this one and find nothing
> but support
> that Palestinians cheered. Even the Pro-Palestine positions
> address it with
> apologies and commentary that it was the work of fringe elements.
I appreciate your looking for the evidence; I will try and do so as well,
and will get back to you if I find anything. I attended a conference at
which a speaker went into the controvesry in some detail and may try and get
the speaker's citations. BTW, I am not suggesting that no Palestinians saw
Sept 11 as something the US 'deserved.' One Palestinian told me that 'at
last, Americans can know what it is like to be attacked.' Several
Palestinians have told me that the US has been so blind to the effects of
our policies on the the Palestinians that this might be a wake-up call to
us. I don's not know any Palestinians personally who 'rejoiced,' and
several called or emailed to offer sympathies.
>
>
> 2. Who, in 2000, refused an offer to give the Palestinians 97% of the
> westbank -- in a contiguous area -- shared control of Jerusalem, a capitol
> in Jerusalem, and the right for Palestinians refugees everywhere to return
> to the new homeland?
> a) *Arafat*
> b) Barak
>
> L:This was actually in 2001. This was a niggardly 'offer,' though, yes, it
> was the most 'generous' one yet offered by Israel. It does not provide for
> the creation of a viable Palestine, and failed to honor several past
> agreements in principle, e.g. the Oslo Accords. Many other key
> issues were
> not resolved during those negotiations, and the talks broke down over
> several issues, not just the one you cite.
>
> The situation is not one in which the Israelis can simply make offers
> and the Palestinians are obligated to accept them. The two are at war, and
> only cooperative negotiations can end it. Both sides will have to
> compromise
> significantly if these negotiations are to be successful. Neither
> can impose
> a solution on the other.
>
> R:
> All Arafat had to do was present his counter-offer. I am convinced that
> Arafat does not want peace or a separate state. He wants the whole
> enchilada. Again, I am not throwing this out as a moral judgement (and I
> realize some powerful Israelis have the same view toward Palestine), I am
> throwing this out as something to consider in working toward a
> solution. I
> believe that Arafat will not agree to any partial state, and
> therefore any
> independence must be granted absent his approval. If something
> later changes
> my view, then I will adapt my philosophy accordingly.
It seemed, e.g. at Taba, that Arafat WOULD consider much less than a full
state, provided it is sovereign. I can give you the date/citation, if you
like; it it to Ha'aretz newspaper, Israel.
In any case, I think at this point that botht he Israeli and Palestinian
governments have given up on the prospects for peace, and it is to create a
new opportunity for a settlement that we should all be working.
You are completely right, IMO, that the Palestinians have failed to be
assertive enough in presenting their own demands. It was the outbreak of
violence, though, that ended the Taba process, not that the Palestinians
simply 'walked away.' Regardless, it is incumbent upon the Palestinians to
be ready to present their own vision of a design for peace.
> 3. True or false -- Palestine was a British mandate given to Jews and
> Palestinian Arabs after WWI from the remnants of the Turkish Empire?
> a) *true*
> b) false
>
Alright, you are sucking me into responding to some of your other 'beliefs.'
Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire; it was to become independent
after World War I. Instead, the British IMPOSED a Mandate upon the Palestine
(with France imposng a parallel mandate on Syria, and one on Namibia, etc --
this was a new face of colonialism, but an old impulse.)
Palestine wasn't 'given' to the Palestinians- they already lived there.
Palestinians were assured of their right to self-determination under the
Mandate. Nor was Palestine 'given' to the Jews, though part of the Mandatory
mission was to support the creation in Palestine of a national home for
Jews. 'National" in the sense used in the UK-WZO negotiations meant a
cultural center, explicitly rejecting the notion of a State -- essentially
the terms of the Balfour Declaration.
Now comes the critical part: the Palestinians rejected the Mandate authority
(formalized in the Palestinian-British Correspondence of 1922. We are left
ourselves to judge its validity: did the League of Nations (under whose
auspices the Manadate systems was created) and the UK "own" Palestine, such
that they could give it to anyone? Do we really want to take the position
that they could seize a country and 'give' it to whomever they pleased?
This is a matetr of law, morality, and political judgement. What are your
thoughts?
> 4. 80% of Palestinian land is in which country?
> a) *Jordan*
> b) Israel
Palestine is bordered by Lebanon to the north, the Tiberius-Dead Sea axis to
the east, Egypt to the south, and the Mediterranean to the west. Jordan,
formerly called Transjordan, lies east of the Dear Sea-Tiberius line. I am
not sure how "palestinian land" can lie in Jordan. The Palestinians make no
claim to Jordanian territory, only to Palestine, or, now, parts of
Palestine.
>
> 5. Prior to Israeli occupation, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were
> controlled
> by..
> a) The free state of Palestine
> b) *Jordan and Egypt*
>
> L: Yes, after the israei seizure of much of Palestine, Egypt took over the
> administration of the Gaza Strip, and Jordan the West Bank. They
> both did so
> with explicit agreement of the Palestinians and explicit statements that
> they were NOT asserting sovereignty over those two areas. Indeed, both
> governments have periodically reasserted this, and their national maps did
> not show those areas as a part of their sovereign lands. No mistreatment,
> and no complaints by the Palestinians that Egypt and Jordan did anything
> improper.
>
> R:
> If the goal is truly an independent Palestinian state, then why
> aren't they
> demanding it from Jordan too? Why didn't they demand it when they were
> annexed by Egypt and Jordan from 1949 to 1967? My conclusion is
> that this is
> about something quite separate from statehood. On the other
> hand, I believe
> the solution IS to create an independent state. What makes it
> difficult is
> that we will never get a voluntary agreement on the details of
> this state IF
> the parties to the agreement all don't really want a solution.
> Granted, I am
> being cynical, but there is very little down side. If Arafat suddenly
> changes his stripes, and starts negotiating, I would recommend he
> be invited
> in. My recommendation is simply DO NOT ASSUME ALL PARTIES WANT PEACE,
> COEXISTANCE AND STATEHOOD.
I don't. And, if anything, things have deteriorated, in this respect in the
last couple of months, on both sides.
The Palestinians, as I said above, don't have any territorial aspirations in
Jordan. Jordan belongs to the Jordanians. In 1967, the Palestinians were
flattened by the Israelis; they had no capcity for self-government. Egypt
and Jordan stepped into help with administration. Palestinians didn't deman
indpendence from these two because they hadn't asserted sovereignty over the
West Bank or Gaza; they demanded the return of Palestinian lands occupied in
1948 and 1967 by Israel to them. As time then went by, many Palestinian came
to give up hope that they would back all their territory, which brings us to
the present settlement proposals. But giving up the hope of getting it all
back is controversial among the Palestinians, as you can imagine. This
controversy is one of the things making it hard for the Palestinians to be
proactive in proposing their vision of a peace settlement.
>
> 6. Israel occupied these two areas because...
> a) They attacked peaceful arab neighbors in a land gr! ab
> b) *They captured it in a battle while defending themse! lves from
> attempted
> arab annihilation*
>
> L:The Gaza Strip and West Bank were seized by Israel in 1967 in a war that
> Israel initiated, not the Arab countries. In 1973, Egypt did
> attack Israel,
> but in the end this did not affect the West Bank or Gaza demarcations.
>
> R:
> So, Egypt DIDN'T announce on May 16th and 19th of 1967 that they would
> annihilate Israel? Egypt DIDNT demand UN troops leave Gaza?
> Nasser DIDNT
> say on May 27th that "the basic objective will be the destruction
> of Israel"?
> Egyptian, Iraqi and Saudi forces weren't sent to Jordan? Nasser DIDNT
> declare his intention to block Israeli shipping? Yes, Israel launched a
> preemptive strike. They did not initiate this war.
I can't vouch for the quotes, but generally, your point is well taken. I
believe that Nasser actually imposed a ban on Israeli shipping in the Suez
Canal BEFORE the dates you cite. Remember, they were in a state of war,
mitigated only by an Armistice Agreement; that is what countries do to each
other. Quandt's book goes into this in more detail.
>
> 7. Which people have textbooks teaching their children that another
> religious
> group is evil and must be killed?
> a) Israelis
> b) *Palestinians*
>
> L:
> Now, this one we have talked to death.
>
> R:
> Again, I have dozens of sources that indicate that such textbooks
> exist in
> various Arab nations. I also have seen some rebuttals from the
> Pro-Palestine
> side that explains away the issue by stating they were using old Saudi
> textbooks and that the teachers taught around it. My point again
> is not that
> anyone is unbiased, or that this means the Palestinians are bad.
> It is that
> we need to acknowledge that there is an active goal to destroy
> Israel that
> must be understood when building solutions. Can you really deny this?
Can you distinguish, Roger, between 'wanting to destroy Israel' and 'wanting
to get their lands back?' I don't think this is a quibble. The
Palestinians view the Zionists as a bunch of Europeans who colonized
Palestine, much like the Boers did South Africa. There are Palestinians who
think the Zionists ought to 'go home.' I agree that this is naive and shows
little appreciation for the horrors that Jews in Europe have been exposed
to. The Palestinians would point out that they were not reponsible for
those horrors, and should not be made to pay the price for it. These are
some of the reasons the whole conflict strikes me as such a sad one. Neither
the Israeils nor Palestinians are 'bad' people; they are just people caught
in a nightmare, and doing each the best they can.
I just saw the movie, "Lane Change.' What a hopeful metaphor for the
Palestinians and Israelis. Is it naive to hope that this thing can be
settled peacfully. Perhaps, but I do believe that we have to try.
>
> 8. Whose government-run newspaper ran a headline praising
> Adolph Eichman
> with
> "The Honor of Killing 6 Million" people?
> a) America's
> b) *Saudi Arabia's*
>
> Don't know about this. Citation. please?
>
> R:
> Here is one source:
>
> Historically, the <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html">Islamic</A>
> world's orientation to <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/genocide.html">genocide</A> against <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jews.html">the Jews</A>
> has not been limited to idle phrasemaking. Even before <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/israel.html">Israel</A> came into
> existence in <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/warindep.html">1948</A>, on
> November 28, 1941, the Grand <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html">Mufti</A> of <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jerusalem.html">Jerusalem</A>, Haj
> Amin, met in Berlin with Adolph Hitler. The subject of their
> meeting was "the
> final solution of the <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jews.html">Jewish</A>
> Question". This meeting, which followed Haj
> Amin's active organization of <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html">Muslim</A> SS
> troops in Bosnia,
> included the <A HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/islam.html">Mufti</A>
> 's promise to aid German victory in the <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/war.html">war</A>. Later, after <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/israel.html">Israel</A>'s trial and
> punishment of Nazi <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/war.html">war</A>
> criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Iranian and <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/arabs.html">Arab</A>
> newspapers treated the mass murderer as a "martyr", and
> congratulated him for
> having "conferred a real blessing on humanity" by liquidating six
> million <A
> HREF="http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jews.html">
> Jews</A>.
>
> - Louis Rene Beres
> Professor of International Law
> Department of Political Science
> Purdue <A
> HREF="http://www.adl.org/frames/front_schooled.html">University</A>
Thanks, I'll check these sources out, Rog. I do hope that we can get an
actual citation to the primary source, though.
> 9. Which side of the struggle pays $25 to $50K to the families of
> suicide
> bombers that kill mothers and children?
> a) Jews
> b) *Arabs*
>
> L: I believe this is correct, but don't have primary source knowledge. It
> is fo course, contentious to specify that 'mothers and children' are the
> victims, when men are as well. or is a man's life not worth as much as a
> woman's, in your view?
>
> R:
> I think the point is obvious.
Me too! <smile>
> 10. A representative of which country boasted that the final
> solution to
> the
> middle east problem was in getting nuclear weapons?
> a) Israel
> b) *Iran*
>
> L: Didn't know this. I would have guessed Saddam Hussein. I wonder to
> what
> extent the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons makes the ASrabs
> feel they
> too must 'get one.' This is all so sad. I am thinking of your 'millions
> dead' scenario.
>
> R:
> Scary!
Yes, very. And one of the reasons I am pushing people on this, to
understand the conflict well enough that they can help in advancing a
settlement to it.
> 11. Whose covenants of 1968 specifically state that "the establishment
> of
> Israel is fundamentally null and void" and that it "is a national
> duty....to
> purge the Zionist presence."?
> a) *Palestine's*
> b) France's
>
> L: Correct. You do not note that this part of the Palestinian National
> Covenant has been eliminated.
>
> R:
> My fear of course is that the animosity responsible has NOT been
> eliminated.
I think, realistically, that the quality of any future peace settlement will
determine whether the Palestinians, as a whole, accept a compromise peace
with Israel, that is, one in which they give up substantial portions of
Palestine to the Israelis. I do believe that if the settlement is viable
that the animosity will recede. Of course, at this time, with what is
happening, it is sky-high.
> 12. Whose geography maps in school don't show Israel?
> a) *Palestinians'*
> b) Turkey's
>
> L: Please note that the website you referred me to, also indicates that
> Jewish fundamentalist textbooks fail to show Palestine on their maps, and
> show Israel all the way to the Jordan river.
>
> R:
> Yes, factions on both sides do not want peace or coexistance.
>
>
> 13. Palestinians are denied employment, healthcare and government
> services
> in...
> a) Israeli occupied territories
> b) *Lebanon*
>
> L: Wrong. Palestinians had all of this in Lebanon. They ARE refugees
> there, and so do live in poor conditions generally, but not as a result of
> government policies. Lebanon has provided a great quanity of
> services to the
> Palestinians in kind -- municipal services, utilities, etc. Check out the
> UNWRA records (the UN refugee agency that has kep meticulous records over
> the decades.) It is true that no host government has wanted to take the
> large numbers of refugees in as permanent residents, and that they are
> viewed, in there numbers, as a social burden. But hundreds of thousands of
> Palestinians work gainfully in their host countries, and indeed
> in some have
> become full players in the economy.
>
> Again, no mistreatment, and, again, none alledged by the Palestinians
> themselves.
>
> R:
> The attached summary prepared by palestinians in Lebanon seems to
> contrdict
> your statements.
> http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/ajial_center/ngo_lebanon.html
>
> By the way, your statement is not correct that no nation wanted
> to take large
> numbers of refugees. Israel absorbed the hundreds of thousands
> of Jews that
> became refugees of Arab lands as a result of the Arab goal to eradicate
> Israel.
Arab Jews moved to Israel from several Arab countries after the 1956 Israeli
attack on Egypt. The attack and the appeal of Israel to world Jewry to help
them made the the Jewish Araba seem like a potential fifth column. If this
had been a result of the desire of the Arab countries to 'eradicate Israel',
I would rather suppose that the emigration of Arab jews would have been
stopped, rather than encouraged, don't you think?
> 14. Who ethnically cleansed (deported) hundreds of thousands of
> Palestinians
> about a decade ago?
> a) *Kuwait*
> b) Israel
>
> L: The term 'ethnic cleansing' means killing a population, genocide, or
> exile. At the time of the US/Kuwait counter-attack on Iraq, some
> Palestinians supported Iraq, who they viewed as their major political
> supporter at the time. The Kuwaitis were furious, as you can imagine, and
> expelled Palestinians who worked there, including some who had been there
> for decades and had come to think of themselves as Kuwaitis. This was a
> great hardship, but not, IMO, inappropriate. Palestinians were expelled,
> not killed. BTW, this is a pattern that the Palestinains have experienced
> before: their poltiical activism become a thorn in the side for their host
> governments, tension mounts, and sometimes boils over into
> trouble: Jordan,
> Lebanon, Egypt, and Kuwait had this experience.
>
> But it isn't mistreatment. I am sure that those who would wish the
> issue of the Palestinians to 'go away' find comfort in the
> argument that the
> Arab countries have 'failed' to assimilate the Palestinian refugees who
> fetched up in their countries; you will understand the shared
> insistence of
> the Palestinians and Arab countires that the Palestinians be able
> to return
> to Palestine.
>
> R:
> Deportation isn't "mistreatment"? (btw, I agree that the ethnic
> cleansing
> moniker is too biased in my statement. My bad.)
No, I think that given the Palestinian behavior vis-a-vis the Kuwaitis and
Iraqis, that deportation was the correct Kuwaiti response. I do think it was
unfair to those Palestinians who had remained loyal to Kuwait, but I imagine
that in the heat of the moment it is difficult to sort out who is who. And,
again, I don't believe that the Palestinians today accuse Kuwait of
mistreatment in that matter.
> 15. Who provides sanctuary and support for some of the most wanted
> terrorists
> and suicide bombers and also celebrates murderous martyrdom?
> a) Clinton
> b) *Arafat*
>
> L: I don't know about 'celebrates', but generally, this is
> correct. There
> is no doubt in my mind that Arafat at least implicitly condones it. Please
> note that this is what happens in insugencies:
>
> R:
> I think the admittedly biased facts listed above (all 15) lead one to the
> conclusion that we must be very suspicious of attempts to
> oversimplify this
> struggle to one of statehood and co-existance. What is needed is a
> TRANSITION to a situation where Palestinian STATEHOOD is a fact.
> Once they
> have a nation, the factions that want Israel (or Palestine)
> destroyed will be
> unable -- or at least less able -- to couch their hate in noble
> terms. People
> -- on both sides -- can choose whether to hate or to live.
Yes, we are in agreement on this.
Best regards,
Lawry
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 - 16:02:11 BST