I saw this billboard several times yesterday in Bethlehem. It expresses the desire to press forward with the “peace process” now that Gaza is “free.” A few thoughts:
1. This is a “victory” sign for the Palestinians. They “won” Gaza by terror, and if they aren’t given the West Bank (in its entirety), then they will “win” that too. This is not my prediction; this is what the chief of Israeli intelligence is saying. With what withdrawal will the Arabs be satisfied and stop clamoring for more?
2. Perpetuating the illusion that Jerusalem is a possibility for the Israelis to surrender to the Palestinians is foolish and counter-productive. How about changing the “road map” to include a provision that the Palestinians agree to release all claim to Jerusalem as the next step, before which the Israelis will take no steps.
3. Of all the things to make one sad, it is the person whom the Palestinians put on their posters. Arafat’s face is everywhere in Bethlehem. They know he is a crook who literally stole from his people. They know that he cost them far more than he ever gave them. They know that he is a terrorist who killed innocent women and children. Still they hold him forth as their hero. What does this portend for the “nation” of Palestine, when their “George Washington” is such a person. The damage is more than just internal; the world looks at Arafat and thinks that all Palestinians are like him. They are not. But you wouldn’t know it from their posters.
The answer to #1, if you are completely ignorant of all Arab history and rhetoric: Tel Aviv
I completely agree with your three points. It is so sad to see this happening, the foolishness of the Israeli government is almost hard to stomach. Why don’t they act as a sovereign nation, and not give in to the pressures from the rest of the world?! But, as Pastor Don McDougall always says, it is exactly what God wills, they are just steps to the last days. Maranantha!
1. If you were Palestinian, would you be happy with the West Bank? Probably not, and I doub there will ever be a lack of rhetoric on that count. At the same time, I hardly think the Palestinian people are monolithic on this point. The ’48 refugees to be sure will not be satisfied with the West Bank — their homes lie on the Israeli side.
The West Bankers and Gazans, however, will probably settle for what they can get.
2. I quite agree (although for it to work you have to convince the Muslim world that the haram will remain intact — and I predict that will be a very hard sell).
3. Again I quite agree. I don’t think Arafat ever did anything for the Palestinian people except gain worldwide publicity for himself — which they loved almost as much as he did, hence one of the reasons he is so revered (besides the old tribal mentalities).
Just my $0.02
Isaac – great to hear from you, and thanks for the good input. On whether or not I’d be satisfied with the West Bank, that’s obviously impossible to answer since there’s no way I could really put myself in their shoes. But I’d like to think that I would think through history and conclude that this is a reasonable situation given 1) the UN Partition Plan; 2) the history of wars (read: losses); 3) the significant concessions it requires of the Israelis, including the surrender of the heartland of their biblical homeland. As for the ’48 refugees, indeed they lost. But there are as many Jewish refugees who lost their homes (and fortunes) in the same war in Arab countries. That doesn’t make it right, but at some point you have to move on. Unfortunately the Arab leadership has made it very difficult for their people to move on.
It sounds to me as though some of what you’re saying could be read as:
Palestinians should be happy with whatever we give them and should not expect much from us anyway.
Why not?
What of justice, equality, love for thy neighbour?
It does not seem very Christian to say “you lost the war, we are in a dominant position, and if you attempt through diplomacy or military resistance to prevent these injustices from continuing, we will label you terrorists, demolish your houses and shoot at your children and kill any Brits or Americans who dare stand in our way”.
Of course, if you believe there is no current injustice, then you can logically continue to think as you do.
But maybe consider the following:
– Israel is a sovereign nation, Palestine is a collection of refugee camps.
– The majority of Israelis are first, second, third of fourth generation immigrants, some of whom enjoy dual nationality. The majority of Palestinians are refugees from their own country, who do not enjoy the citizenship of any country.
– Natural resources are not shared equally between Palestinians and Israelis.
– Although Israel has a thriving economy (and is the 16th most prosperous country in the world), it still receives more US aid money than any other country. Financial aid to the Palestinians, in comparison, is miniscule.
– Israel, even though it has a thriving economy, enjoys special trade privileges with both the US and the EU, whereas the Palestinian territories – and indeed the majority of third world countries – do not.
– While Israel enjoys the support of the international community, its governments continuously and consistently flout its international legal obligations. It is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other country, and persists in not complying with decisions of the International Court of Justice. Palestine, on the other hand, is shunned by every country in the world. Not one nation recognises the state of Palestine, although both Israel and Palestine were officially formed in the same UN resolution, a legally-binding document. You could infer from this that this is because the Palestinians are viewed by objective outsiders as being in the wrong, while Israel is viewed as being the innocent victim. (I think you would mistaken but my comment is already too long for me to give reasons – so I do not expect you to be swayed on this matter).
– The State of Israel was created on the back of persistent terrorism by Zionist militias. The British army and colonial government were forced to leave Palestine in the face of continued bomb attacks and other forms of guerilla warfare from Zionist militias, while at the same time their resources were being and had been stretched fighting Hitler in Europe. Since terrorism was a successful tool in bringing about the establishment of the State of Israel, then how can Palestinian terrorist militias be criticised without being hypocritical? (Personally, I feel that terrorism is terrorism and it does not matter by whom or for what cause it is carried out – I am opposed to it).
– The Israeli military consistently performs acts which could be construed as “terrorist”. There is no internationally-accepted definition of terrorism (principally as Governments do no want to agree a definition and then find themselves falling within it), but I offer this as a definition (and I think one is necessary as it is a term that is often used without any qualification): a terrorist is the perpetrator of a violent, military or pseudo-military act the consequence of which is the loss of civilian life. If that is the working definition, then the Israeli military would constitute a larger terrorist entity than all the Palestinian milita groups combined. The civilian loss of life amongst Palestinians as a result of Israeli military operations are siginificantly larger than those amongst Israeli civilians. I am not saying this as a justification for the murders of any Israeli civilians. As far as I am concerned, they too are the victims of terrorists. But, I think the term should be applied with some consistency otherwise it becomes meaningless. For some people, a terrorist act can only be perpetrated by someone who is not a member of recognised national army. In that case, until a Palestinian state is recognized or established, only Israeli soldiers will enjoy such an exemption from the terrorist tag. Further, if a definition of terrorist excludes anyone who is not Israeli, then the word becomes meaningless and redundant.
– Yasser Arafat may well have been incompetent, corrupt and a war-monger. As Israelis, you should be wary of pointing to these qualities as being unique to the former Palestinian leader. A few former (and current) Israeli leaders have military track records the contents of which would have made them a war criminal had they been Serbian or Rwandan and a few have been plagued with corruption allegations, and some people posting on this blog seem to think that a few of them are or have been incompetent. It seems like an irrelevance to me. But imagine if the Palestinians made suggestions or even demands about who should lead the State of Israel. One standard for Israel, another for Palestinians.
Anyway, I have taken up too much space on your blog. I don’t know if any of this contribution is helpful or welcome and if it is offensive, I apologise. Feel free to remove it, if that is possible.
Londoner – yes, I think you are a bit wordy on someone else’s blog (better to make brief comments and link to somewhere else if necessary). And I’m not sure if you wrote these comments for me or if you’ve posted these elsewhere, but if the latter is true, then I would consider it inappropriate (I sense the latter because you refer to me as an Israeli while it should be clear from this blog that I am not).
I welcome other views and their expression in my comments but I don’t have time to debate them here. I do think you are in error on a number of points. I’ll take just one – your definition of terrorism. I think most would agree that a democratically-elected government has the right to enforce laws and to protect life, even if that means the loss of civilian life. This is not terrorism. Stopping a suicide bomber by killing him is not terrorism. By your definition, any action that results in the loss of Palestinian life is terrorism, as there are no “non-civilians” in the Palestinian territories.
Regarding the failings of current Israeli leaders, they are of a completely different character than that of Arafat, and unworthy of comparison.