Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 20:27:46 -0400
From: Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Political Inventions
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Samuel Lubell wrote:

> At 10:09 AM 4/7/02 -0400, Ron wrote:
> >
> >On Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:24:08 -0500 Ted White <tedwhite at compusnet.com>
> >writes:
> >
> >... the Nazi-like invasion of surrounding
> >> territories by the (right wing, fundamentalist) "settlers."   These
> >> "settlements" are naked land-grabs and have caused great misery.
> >> They are also the main sticking point in any peace efforts.   They
> >*should* be
> >> razed to the ground and wholly abandoned, but since it was Sharon who
> >initially > established them, that appears unlikely.
> >>
> >
> >On the face of it, it is not a wrongful act to buy land and settle on the
> >land - people do that every day just about everywhere in the world.  The
> >real problem with the settlements, I think, is in the intentions of the
> >settlers, and of Israel, and not in the act of settling and habitation
> >itself.  Doubtless most of the settlers wish to have Israel officially
> >take possession of and sovereignty over the West Bank, Palestinians be
> >damned.  The Palestinians now living in the West Bank territory, under
> >that scheme, would have to accept second-class status under Israeli rule,
>
> Why would they be second-class?  There are plenty of Arab citizens in
> Israel proper who are full citizens with the right to vote.  There are even
> Arabs in the Israeli Parliament.
>
> However, one of the reasons why Israel has never annexed the West Bank is
> that adding all the Arabs who lived there would make the Arab population
> close to a majority.
>
> >or leave Israeli jurisdiction.  But I observe that that is pretty much
> >what the status is now.
> >
> >During Ottoman rule, and under the British Mandate, Jews and Palestinians
> >got along peacefully living together in Palestine, except toward the end
> >of the Mandate era, when it became increasingly apparent that creation of
> >the long-anticipated Jewish state was imminent.  The peaceful conditions
> >in the first 40 years or so of the 20th century are explained, I think,
> >by the fact that Ottoman rule, and British rule, were mostly even-handed,
> >not favoring any group over another.
>
> The Jews and Palestinians may have lived peacefully but neither had any
> real political rights.  That's like saying the solutions to the problems of
> a democracy are to become a dictatorship.
>
> >> In the meantime, the leaders of the Arab states have offered normal
> >> relations to Israel if it returns the lands it seized in 1967.  This is
> >a Major > Breakthrough -- and one Israel has turned its back on.
>
> First don't forget that the Israel-Arab problems didn't start in 1967.
> There were a few wars before that had nothing to do with those territories,
> which Israel seized in part to have a buffer.  Israel understandably
> believes that if it just gives up the territories, there'd be nothing to
> stop them from being used as a base to attack all of Israel.
>
> Second, the reason Israel has "turned its back" on the Arab peace process
> is that it was accompanied by over 100 civilians being killed in terrorist
> attacks in the last month.  I can't see any country being willing to
> negotiate while civilians are under fire like that.

A pundit on one of the TV shows devoted to politics stated that negotiations to
end/resolve wars often take place while the hostilities are going on.   And
these days the Palestinians are equally (if not more so) "under fire."   As a
friend of mine likes to say, "Count the dead."  There are more dead
Palestinians (from the last year or so) than Israelis, by a factor of at least
3 to 1.

One argument is that suicide bombers "target" the civilian population of
Israel, while the Israeli army "targets" only specific "known terrorists."  On
the other hand, the Israelis "targeted" a car carrying a mother and her
children (they wanted her husband, but he wasn't in the car), they "target" Red
Crescent ambulances, and they have both "targeted" and killed foreign
journalists (as well as telling a reporter from NBC/MSNBC *on camera* that if
he crossed a street he would be shot and killed).  Most of the deaths caused by
the Israeli army are of innocent civilians who happened to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time.  I see no moral superiority for the Israelis in this
conflict.

> But somehow, when it is Jews being killed, the killers are called
> "militants" not terrorists.

I don't hear them called that.  I hear them being called (most often) "suicide
bombers" and (less often) "desperate" and "fanatic."

When 18-year-old girls start blowing themselves up with the objective of taking
out as many Jews as possible (and actually do kill a 17-year-old Israeli girl),
what does that tell you about their lives and attitudes?   Well, for sure they
don't see much of a future for themselves.

--Ted White