The New Republic says: "Mission Accomplished" in Palestine

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

On the cover of the last issue I've seen, it says that the Intifada is over.

― Rockist Scientist, Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:01 (twenty-one years ago)

this was a dream, right¿

― dysøn (dyson), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)

I've been reading a lot of people saying that the Intifada is essentially over, or has been crushed, or whatever. Now it's full steam ahead to build settements all over the West Bank and herd the Palestinians into Jordan or ever smaller and more circumscribed Bantustans and reservations. Rock on!

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 19:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha yeah, dream on guys.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know what TNR's take is (no info on their web site), but the "intifada is over" talk all stems from this
editorial
by Charles Krauthammer. Whatever, he's entitled to his opinion.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

The intifada has been over, and then started again, several times. I'll believe it if a year or two goes by with nothing.

By the way, Charles Krauthammer was my neighbor in DC. We used to have holiday dinners with his family. Very nice guy, but we often winced at his politics.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, and I just read the editorial. It was written in June. Since then there have been major attacks including a really horriffic bus bombing. That's gotta be the biggest "eat your words" moment since "The End of History" came out.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I think he meant "the intifida is spent as a political force", not "there won't be any more violence".

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe I saw an old issue. It was in a spot in the library that should have had the latest issue, but maybe the more recent ones were out.

― Rockist_Scientist (rockist_scientist), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry, the Krauthammer one was from June. I don't know when the TNR one was.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems clear that the intifada won't end until there is a viable palestinian state. For it to be over, at the moment, means that the palestinians have decided to go on under the heel of israel for the foreseeable future. If we have the same conditions, the same movements will rise from within palestine, and the fighting will continue. I'm sure Israel is not so naive as to view the intifada as a storm, which if you secure your house and keep snug for long enough will dissipate or pass on. The struggle for rights for palestinians will continue, occassionally through horrific acts of violence, until there is either a palestinian state, or no palestinians left.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"It seems clear that the intifada won't end until there is a viable palestinian state."

Ah, "viable palestinian state," that's the rub. What would be your definition of a state viable enough that the intifada would stop?

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, there are problems. I guess I would start off by sayin it must be sovereign, democratically elected. No Israeli personnal, policeman, or soldiers, withoug permission of the Palestinian Government. Air-space restrictions against Israel. Borders - 48? 67? Whatever - I want the best deal for the palestinians so 1948 borders I think,. Palestine would trade independantly, (or join EU) have their own military, police force. etc. Basically a normal state.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Some excerpts.

― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:38 (twenty-one years ago)

If the intifada is really over, we'll probably see a mysterious increase in ketushya rocket attacks from lebanon.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks for the links, bnw. It didn;t say why they were justified in calling the intifada over. They did talk about the effect the 'victory' has had on Israel, which was interesting. But I'm still not sold that the intifada is over.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Tuesday, 28 September 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Yay! The Zionist war machine has conquered the West Bank! On to Damascus!

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

seriously, is there a thread going on israel assassinating a hamas dude in damscus yet? apparently hamas will retaliate by no longer confining their attacks to israel/palestine.

moral of the story: new republic in head up ass SHOCKAH

― Symplistic (shmuel), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 00:33 (twenty-one years ago)

This isn't over until whatever govt administrates Palestinians doesn't discriminate against them based on their ethnicity.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Then what are the Jordanian, Lebanese, and Egyptian govt. excuses for it?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 00:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, they probably think of them the same way the British government thinks of "asylum seekers." But I have no idea, actually. What do I look like, a UN diplomat?? I just thought it seemed obvious.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I skimmed through that TNR article. I usually take any TNR reporting on Israel with a grain of salt, since I think I already know their position on the issue. Overall the article seemed very admiring of Sharon - it makes him out to be some kind of Churchillian hero of tough-mindedness and vision - not just for being willing to defy international (or at least European) opinion by striking at Hamas political and religious leaders, but also for defying his own political base by being willing to accept the idea (at least) of a Palestinian state. However, I wouldn't start counting all those "the intifada is over" hens before they hatch. I don't think anything is going to be over until a political settlement is reached. The true test will be whether Sharon has gotten the region any closer to that kind of settlement - not how defiant he is of the whiny liberal doves.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:18 (twenty-one years ago)

* note that I use the term "whiny" with some degree of sarcasm

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno, they probably think of them the same way the British government thinks of "asylum seekers."
But it wouldn't be *ethnic* discrimination, because ethnically, there is little difference between Jordanians, Syrians and Palestinians (might as well add Egyptians to the mix -- Arafat, for instance, is Egyptian). So what's their excuse for discriminating against their own people?

Therefore, saying that the problem is "ethnic" discrimination is just a convenient way of blaming Israel for anything and everything.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:33 (twenty-one years ago)

And it follows that the problem isn't Israel inasmuch as it is Lebanon (whose govt bars hundred of thousands of Palestinians living there from over 70 professions), Egypt (who ran the Gaza strip like a concentration camp when they illegally occupied it and allowed zero movement of populations, built no permanent homes, and created no jobs for Palestinians), and the PA. Oh wait, people ARE wising up to the PA's corruption and general bullshit, hence the security issues that the PA is presently having there.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:37 (twenty-one years ago)

So the intifada isn't over -- and it won't be over until the Palestinians start spreading around the blame for their hardships, which means all parties must stop inciting violence against Jews (notice I didn't write Israelis), which is just scapegoating -- and start taking a harder look at the way they've been fucked over by other Arabs.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:40 (twenty-one years ago)

i was using ethnic in an imprecise way, sorry about that. i guess i mean that unless Israel starts governing Palestinians as equal partners, and citizens on an equal footing as Jews, that this will not end. i still haven't seen how this is wrong. saying that Palestinians should show more self-control is like Bush saying "you know, i think ALL 527 ad groups should be banned" i.e. easy to say and allows you to carry on doing what you're doing. it would be as futile as to ask Israel to show a little self-control. what's needed is an end to separate and unequal treatment of Palestinians, and i think it's amazing you could disagree with such a fundamental premise. does doing that exclude all these other things you want to take a hard look at?

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"what's needed is an end to separate and unequal treatment of Palestinians"

This just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the history. Palestinians do not want integration and equal treatment, they want their own state. In the meantime they live in a territory which most of the world doesn't consider part of Israel but merely occupied by Israel. Whichever side you take, you can't really argue that.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 01:59 (twenty-one years ago)

that's true, and i'm glad i'm not!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it's amazing that you could ignore everything I just wrote and lay all the blame back on Israel.

You want to talk about equal partners? Maybe the PA should start considering their own people as equal partners, rather than live like fatcats off the billions in international aid they receive, all while somehow not finding the time or money to even build ONE permanent house for ONE refugee.

(xpost to Tracer's penultimate post)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, it's rather silly to just say "Until the Palestinians stop terrorism" or "Until the Israelis start respecting Palestinians" or "Until the Palestinians permit dissent." It's clear that neither side has really been very respectful of the other in negotiations, and it takes both of them to reach a solution.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:03 (twenty-one years ago)

But it's dishonest to treat them as two balanced but intransigent forces. One of them has a government, US support, and helicopter gunships. The other "side" lives under that governement.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:09 (twenty-one years ago)

The "other side" has the support of the entire Arab world and much of Europe. And it also has plenty of people willing to blow themselves up to kill innocent civilians.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But if the Palestinians hadn't been screwed over repeatedly by other Arab nations, then there wouldn't be a misbalance. You can't blame Israel 50 years down the line because they bothered getting around to building a nation. In 1948, there was certainly a balance, except militarily, where the combined might of the British armed and trained Egyptians and Jordanians was far superior to Israel.

Also, the PA was self-governing for many years, with their own budgets independent from Israel and billions in international aid propping them up. Where is all that money? Have you looked in Arafat's bank account?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

No - and I'm sure no-one here is under any impressions that Arafat is a peniless saint either.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

SO MAYBE WE SHOULD LAY PART OF THE BLAME ON HIM TOO, WHADDAYA SAY?

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:20 (twenty-one years ago)

don't get me wrong, I've got no love for the PA or Arafat, he's a cynical, opportunistic murderer. but i believe Israel has gone out of its way to make sure Arafat is the only person they ever deal with - so that the entire Palestinian cause can be dismissed on his account.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:20 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost - does Arafat deserve the blame for Israel's occupation of Palestine???

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"but i believe Israel has gone out of its way to make sure Arafat is the only person they ever deal with - so that the entire Palestinian cause can be dismissed on his account."

Confining someone to his headquarters and forcing the addition of a Prime Minister isn't exactly the best way to do that. So what gives?

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

We're all quick to critcise the Bush administration (and rightfully so) for screwing over their own country for sending American kids off to die while they take the oil money and run. Why not the PA too?

(xpost -- no, the Arab world deserves the blame for occupying Palestine and treating their people like shit before Israel was involved. Arafat deserves blame for turning his government into an anti-Israel propoganda machine and brainwashing his own people into thinking that everything is Israel's fault).

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha alright then, carry on!

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Confining someone to his headquarters and forcing the addition of a Prime Minister isn't exactly the best way to do that. So what gives?
Arafat was free to govern for years. He was only cutoff following the final straw with the Karine A arms shipment
link
This was what prompted the US and Israel to stop dealing with Arafat, although the PA would prefer that everyone forgot this and instead continue to push their usual tired claims that "Israel won't deal with the elected representative of the Palestinians" It's because of this incident that Arafat was impelled to form a cabinet and start giving up some of his control (although trying to get him to part with anything less than absolute power has proved to be as difficult as squeezing blood from a stone).

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Arafat did serious damage to the Israeli left/peace party when he nixed Clinton's Camp David deal. That move I find maybe even harder to forgive then his terrorist past.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 03:44 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, it was a very balanced deal.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 09:24 (twenty-one years ago)

So when does Israel get put on the state sponsors of terrorism list?

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 09:38 (twenty-one years ago)

http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~w1083002/hell-freezes.jpg

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)

What was wrong with the Camp David deal? My understanding is that Arafat never made a single counter-proposal.

"Israel is the true terrorist." "Sharon is like Hitler." = there's no point to discussing anything.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

They are both terrorists. Let's try and avoid double standards.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

The Camp David deal was flawed because it didn't meet even the minimum requirements of viable statehood as set out by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, in that the Palestine which would have been created would not have been a geographical whole (divided into 4-6 areas, with settlements and israeli forces breaking them up), the state would have been surrounded by israel, and Palestine would have lacked many of the features that make up a state as we understand it - i.e armed forces, airspace etc. The 'land swap' offered would have meant Israel annexing a further 9% of Palestine, in return for 1% of Israel. The Palestinians did counter-propose, with a 3% 1-1 land swap, but this was rejected. Anyway, the Palestinians had their counter-proposal, 242 and 338, which had been agreed by the whole world, with a couple of notable exceptions.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 16:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Kevin you have clearly been brainwashed.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

The Palestinians did counter-propose, with a 3% 1-1 land swap, but this was rejected.

Ah, but I said Arafat in particular. Here is a pretty good exchange of back and forth of what happened at Camp David. Especially if you follow the response letters. It's difficult to keep your eye on the particulars but I think it's obvious that compared to the situation today, the Israel/Palestine the Camp David plan would have created looks like a utopia.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

that's like the way being mugged is better than being murdered.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sort of baffled by the parallel conclusions on this thread, which is to say that only one of the following can actually be true: either (a) Palestinians have been continually mistreated and misled by other Arab states and even their own assumed "leaders," or (b) there's anything that can be thought of as a Palestinian "side." And it seems to me that only the first of those is true; it seems to me impossible to conceive of any coherent set of ideas, goals, or agendas that you can think of as a Palestinian "side"; which just brings us back to Tracer's fundamental point, insofar as the only tiny thing you could probably claim all of these factions would agree on is that Palestinian people should probably live in some sort of coherent state where they're treated as citizens and exist on some sort of equal footing with their neighbors. And really I take Arafat's actions at Camp David as sort of an admission that there's nothing cohesive beyond that, not in practice: surely those were the actions of a man who's been put at the table and sees the offer and recognizes, in the end, that he simply doesn't have the authority or the base to make a deal and expect this splintered mass to stay on board for it.

Sadly I've started to think lately that the only way for this situation to approach anything like being "settled" is (a) for a Palestinian state to exist, and then (b) for that state to experience something that essentially constitutes a civil war. I worry that it's only in that kind of process that any clear line can be drawn between those factions who are willing to start looking forward and those whose militancy is a little too passionate and ingrained to get them anywhere anymore. And maybe only in that kind of process that the actual people of Palestine would finally have a reason to step up with the anti-militant let's-get-on-with-this voice that I think a significant bulk of them have, in the end. And that, sadly, is a shitty apocalypse plan.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

(I guess weirdly I think only that kind of split -- the sort of internal split that can only really happen if there's a Palestinian state, so that the focus isn't directed entirely outward at Israel -- that can produce Palestinian leaders who take the line we all surely want Palestinian leaders to be able to take: that the problem now is to develop a successful and peaceful Palestine, etc. I have some measure of faith that in a situation like that those are the leaders that Palestinians would gravitate toward, no matter how fond they remained of martyr-heroism and romantic militance.)

(And so bnw, just to tweak around your earlier statement: if Arafat at Camp David dealt a counterproductive blow to the Israeli left, then obviously by the same token the Israeli right is delivering countless counterproductive to Palestianian public opinions and the only factions there that could ever be in any position to deal successfully with Israel. I'm not sure the Palestinians can organize into anything cohesive and workable so long as the energy is all directed back at Israel, rather than on those internal alignments; Israel, really, needs to get out of the game.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 29 September 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.