Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary Clinton: Israel should "occupy" the moral high ground, not Palestine (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  yes of course (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but I don't see either how I gave a contrary impression, or what difference it makes to the above. Extremism on both sides is the calamity.

    hope springs eternal

    by ahyums on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:56:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You say that after the detente, Israel went far to the right in response to Palestinian terrorism and as a response to Arab extremism.  This is fucked up analysis.

      The Israeli right became radicalized (or stayed radicalized) in response to the imminent creation of a sovereign Palestine.  It wasn't violence that inspired right-wing Israelis, it was peace.

      When Arafat and Rabin recognized each other's right to exist, and the peace process started, there was a cessation of violence on both sides.  The IDF committed no acts of violence against Palestinians, and the Hamas and Al-Aqsa declared an end to violence and agreed to work within the framework of the peace negotiations.

      This peace was perceived as a threat to the state of "Greater Israel."  It was the Israeli extremists who dismantled the peace.  First with the Rabin murder, then the take-over of the government by Likud, which proceeded to reverse policies on settlements.  Instead of dismantling settlements, Likud began a massive program of ethnic cleansing and settlement construction in the West Bank, which has quadrupled the population of Israeli settlers in land Israel promised to recognize as Palestine.

      Netanyahu then traveled all over the US appearing for interviews in which he was full and free in sharing his beliefs that Palestinian sovereignty was incompatible with Israeli sovereignty and would never be allowed to happen.

      Then there was a massacre at a mosque in the West Bank (by a Jewish ER doctor from New York) and deliberate desecrations of Palestinian holy sites.  Only then did the second intifada begin.  

      Your commentary suggests that the second intifada began first, and the Israeli actions above were a response to the uprising.  Please correct your commentary.

      •  as someone who lived there moths before (0+ / 0-)

        Rabin's assassination, I find it interesting that you deliberately ignore everything that happened under Peres' leadership (i.e. major suicide bombings) in 1996.  Not to mention significant attacks even during Rabin's leadership (I'm thinking of one in particular in Aug. 1995--Egged bus 26--I should know because I rode that line daily until June of that year)

        Your comment is incredibly biased.

        •  so after this happened? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WattleBreakfast, Lepanto

          The Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre

          Despite the fact that Israeli settlers built various monuments to their hero, I don't hold the Israeli government responsible for his crimes.  Most Israelis condemned this terrorist, and the government strongly condemned his actions.

          During Rabin's tenure, both the PA and Israelis made difficult but necessary progress toward a peaceful resolution of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, despite violent extremists.

          After Likud took over power, Israel stopped acting in good faith.  Evidence is the massive expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory beginning in 1996, and Netanyahu's public statements that Israel would never allow Palestinian sovereignty.

          So, Israeli settlers in West Bank enjoy the protection of civil law, and indigenous Palestinians do not.  Explain what you mean by "bias."

      •  It's all about wherever the olitical center lies (0+ / 0-)


        While the Isreali radical right existed but they did not have political momentum. I remain convinced that the second intifada and the vacuum created by Rabin's death led to the radical right becoming  electable.

        I am also confident that strategists on both sides had a fair idea that this was going to happen. They feed off each other, because they both see it as some kind of millennial struggle.and both are convinced they will emerge victorious.

        hope springs eternal

        by ahyums on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:13:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site