Israel to World: "Suck It."

Joodoo Chile

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/61477/five-jews-murdered-in-west-bank/

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-israel-s-approval-of-new-west-bank-homes-counters-peace-efforts-1.348998

Both items are sad

ugh

i don't want to sound callous, but i wonder if modern israelis are sort of now understanding what real regional insecurity feels like. it's too bad the last 30 years of stable dictatorships didn't provide enough room for them to get their house in order.

somehow I sort of doubt it

i mean, one of the really exciting things about the arab uprisings is that the permanent logjam of israel/palestine is getting a mighty shove. egypt in particular was one very large, very firm log. but it's scary too.

scary in the sense that Israel is probably going to be in another war shortly? yes, probably

Are you sure? With Palestinians? The surrounding countries are in disarray with protests or economic woes following the recession and protests. I don't think Syria, Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt want to get in a war with Israel right now.

I'm lookin a few years down the road

for example, there's going to be a lot of internal pressure on whatever new gov't emerges in Egypt not to honor the embargo, once that starts being violated, Israel will start some shit.

Everybody! Everybody! Stop fighting so we can get organized and go to war!

lol

kinda think from an israeli perspective the region's always been 'insecure'

that's what i meant. and now i have to figure that it's like oh, things can get a lot, lot, lot more insecure than that.

I got the impression when i was over there that there's a huge amount of unease but quite a bit of cautious optimism as well. There's a suggestion that with politicians more focused on either building a new democratic agenda or making real efforts to address the needs of their people, there'll be less 'ignore the fact you've got no educational prospects - look at what Israel just did!' rhetoric. Egypt's the major concern at the moment, but there's still so little clarity over what's going to happen there, i don't think any Israeli policy has really crystalised. If it is a semi-legitimate democracy, backed by international good will, that isn't overtly agressive but doesn't put much effort into securing the border, Israel's not going to be in a great position to go gunning for them.

more likely, shrug, business as usual xp

captain optimism here

Israel frankly screwed itself. It refused to make (or at least enforce) compromises, elected a far right guy even less likely to make compromises, then got the least sympathetic US president in recent memory. And now the whole region is falling apart, and pushing Israel off the political map (figuratively). They couldn't possibly have set themselves up for trouble better if they tried. Though maybe they did!

If this leads to countries like Syria doing less talking out of both sides of their mouth re the Palestinians (oh Israel should settle all of them, but we'll keep our Palestinian refugee community in refugee camps and refuse to let them integrate into Syrian society) then I think it'll be better for everyone. Especially if the 'right of return' becomes a non-issue because refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt become settled then there will be a lot more space to come to a compromise. I think it's always been a super longshot making a lasting peace between Israel + Palestinians while Israel is surrounded by violent demagogues -- if you don't feel safe with your supposed 'allies' you certainly won't feel safe with the ppl firing rockets into your borders. A change in governments could change everything.

And I think this 'oh this is real regional uncertainty' thing is totally insane. Is this more uncertain than the second intifada? Or the Yom Kippur war (which has the same kind of psychic impact on Israel today as Vietnam still holds on the US)? Or living on the border of Lebanon or Gaza? Things have been uncertain for a long time. They're maybe just uncertain in different ways now.

yom kippur war was a long time ago - my instinct is that yes, the current evolving situation is less secure for Israel than any other time in the last 20-30 years (more insecure for everyone basically) but I am willing to be schooled on this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

Goldstone says that if he wrote his report today it would've come out different. Good job, dude!

Did you actually read the article? He's not really taking anything back, just adding some nuance.

I'm going to turn your question back on you -- it's quite clear that he's taking a number of things back. First of all, "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document" is a direct quote from him, so I didn't write anything that he didn't say himself. Second of all,

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

This is a significant shift.

(oh Israel should settle all of them, but we'll keep our Palestinian refugee community in refugee camps and refuse to let them integrate into Syrian society)

That might be Lebanon you are thinking of. My understanding is that Palestinians in Syria do not have to live in camps and are allowed to integrate into Syrian society.

For obvious reasons it's hard to know exactly what the situation is in the Syria but afaik Palestinian refugees are not allowed to become citizens. There are 129,457 refugees officially registered in 9 Syrian camps (UNRWA stats) and I've heard that the actual number (including unregistered refugees) is as much as 400,000. Life is Lebanon is for sure worse (and in terms of percentages, 27.1% of Syria's Palestinian population live in RRCs, 53.1% of Lebanon's do - by comparison 25.4% of the West Bank is in RRCs and 45.8% of Gaza). All these countries should be settling their entire Palestinian population though -- the vast majority of these registered refugees were born in these countries. Of course even Jordan, where quality of life is relatively high by comparison, is holding out for the right of return for the refugee populace and won't settle their refugees.

More UNRWA statistics: http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/2011031065331.pdf

My understanding is that while Palestinians in Syria cannot become Syrian citizens they pretty much have the same rights as Syrians (with all the caveats that that implies).

What I have heard from someone who lives in Syria is that many Palestinians live in camps because they like living with other Palestinians. And the word "camp" is a bit misleading, calling to mind rows of tents or chalet-style accomodation. In actuality they are basically neighbourhoods.

I don't believe there are any refugee camps that are tent camps. Jabalia Camp for instance is primarily housing (highest density, biggest camp in Gaza). So I wouldn't read much into that. Plus "they want to be with their own ppl" is classic anti-immigrant sentiment. It helps explain why their communities are stagnant, economically depressed, dysfunctional- "oh they like living that way"

But you might be right that it's still better than Lebanon. Not much of a hurdle to leap.

Palestinians in Lebanon and Syria are a different sort of "immigrant" than most others I'd have thought

Different than what? Tons of immigrants go to new countries bc they are otherwise refugees. It's like a primary cause for immigration.

Sorry, just seemed like you were talking about Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon as the same kind of person who might move from China to New York, live in Chinatown, be happy there, etc

Plus "they want to be with their own ppl" is classic anti-immigrant sentiment.

I'm pretty certain my friend heard from a Palestinian that some Palestinians in Syria like living with other Palestinians, and do so, while others do not and so live away from Palestinian areas.

I don't want to sound glib or snarky so please don't take this that way, but claiming that the refugees enjoy living in RCs because they like being among their own kind and not because they are denied citizenship, have less economic opportunities and are disenfranchised sounds like some kind of excuse for their conditions.

And again, without being glib, my understanding is that Palestinians in Syria do not have to live in camps and many choose not to.

I don't see what that is relevant to. Only 45.8% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are living in camps. They also don't "have" to. That doesn't change anything about them being second class non-even-citizens, or change the fact that due to economic/social/political circumstances they "choose" to live in refugee camps.

I was only talking about Syria, following on from what I think is an untrue claim from you about the status of Palestinians in that country.

In other news, Israel seems to be back to its odd habits of kidnapping people in other countries and transporting them to Israel: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12957071

I don't have anything like the knowledge you do of the subject, Mordy, but it seems to me that the govts of Lebanon and Syria would probably not want their Palestinian refugee populations to become normalized, because doing so would be a tacit acceptance of the status quo vis a vis right to return, Israeli settlements, etc

DV that is a fucked up story

Tracer - that is indeed the logic of Syria and Lebanon not fully normalising the status of their Palestinian populations, though the status of said Palestinians is much more normalised in Syria than Lebanon. I think even in Lebanon there was a slight move to greater normalisation recently, though it is still not very normalised.

"Normalised" is a great word.

idk they could still normalize them. withholding it hasn't proved a killer bargaining chip thus far, and has been a cause of suffering and exploitation. you could put it down to israeli settlements, which i guess means land taken in 1967, but then, they were pretty mean to the palestinians before 1967.

im not sure that they've treated the palestinians as second-class citizens because they want justice for palestine

Meaning?

What they say about Lebanon is that the country's internal politics made some people less than keen about giving Palestinians citizenship rights, as this would cause the country's Sunni muslim population to leap enormously as a proportion of the total population.

I'm not saying that is a reasonable ground for denying citizenship rights.

im not sure that they've treated the palestinians as second-class citizens because they want justice for palestine

yussss, I think basically they (Lebanese governments) treated them as second or third class citizens primarily because they hoped they would go away.

I see, thanks DV.

That's kinda the Palestinian experience in a nutshell isn't it

Meaning?

― 40% chill and 100% negative (Tracer Hand), Monday, April 4, 2011 3:24 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

in lebanon at least, there's a lot of bad blood from the 70s and 80s, when not everyone there welcomed the PLO. know less about syria.

I'm going to turn your question back on you -- it's quite clear that he's taking a number of things back. First of all, "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document" is a direct quote from him, so I didn't write anything that he didn't say himself. Second of all,

Although the Israeli evidence that has emerged since publication of our report doesn’t negate the tragic loss of civilian life, I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians in Gaza were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes.

This is a significant shift.

― Mordy, Saturday, April 2, 2011 4:46 PM Bookmark

Sorry, but how so? All I see here are vague, out-of-context quotes. Saying it would be "a different document" -- well that's true if any changes at all would be made, even minor ones. HOW would the evidence have influenced the findings, and what was the evidence, and what specific findings would change?