Skip to main content

View Diary: What's Painful to Remember, Palestinians Don't Forget (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My purpose in writing about memory (6+ / 0-)

    is to show that there will be no peace without reconciliation, and reconciliation embodies the Palestinians' right to return to their homeland.  No pain is greater than losing one's homeland (rough quote of Euripedes).  Reconciliation is a universal theme in literature.  Reflect on Addassi's words; he is a microcosm of the Palestinian psyche:

    "If the Jews gave themselves the right to go back after two thousand years I should have that right, too," he said.

    •  But can you agree that, just as Jews will (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Terra Mystica

      have to limit their return to the state of Israel, excluding, for example, the religiously-significant cities of Hevron (Hebron) and Shechem (Nablus), so, too, the Palestinians will have to limit their return to the state of Palestine, alongside Israel?

      Al Gore should be president.

      by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:12:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't agree (6+ / 0-)

        and would have no problem living next to Jews anywhere in historic Palestine.

        •  Then you do seek the destruction of Israel. (4+ / 0-)

          Instead of allowing us to be allies in the cause of both peoples' national self-determination, you constrain us to be enemies. In the spirit of David Ben Gurion, however, I will

          • strive to achieve a free and independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, as though you were not striving for the destruction of Israel; and

          • oppose your efforts to destroy Israel as though there were not also a legitimate struggle to create a neighboring Palestine.

          Al Gore should be president.

          by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:23:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not your enemy (6+ / 0-)

            I just believe in simple justice for people like Darwish Addassi.

            •  How else might I consider someone who, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              unfounded, Pumpkinlove, zemblan

              not merely support as an abstract matter, actively supports a policy that entails the destruction of the state of Israel, where close relatives and dear friends of mine live (themselves all supporting two states for two peoples)?

              Al Gore should be president.

              by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:30:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Although I agree with a two state solution (8+ / 0-)

                people who want a one state solution are not evil, misguided but not an enemy they do not want to drive the jewish people away they want to live with them.

                That is a very big distinction and in my heart I hope one day it can happen but not now.

                •  Pursuing a goal that could be realized only (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  unfounded, Pumpkinlove, zemblan

                  through war against the state of Israel and that requires the destruction of that state, makes someone my enemy. Peace and reconciliation are possible only on the basis of both the Jews of Israel and the Arabs of Palestine being able to realize the rights to national self-determination. In other words, two states for two peoples.

                  Al Gore should be president.

                  by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:41:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not only can the goal of a one state solution (4+ / 0-)

                    be achieved only by war, it completely negates Israeli's (most of whom were born in Israel) right to self determination.
                    How exactly is that "justice"?

                  •  gonna be hard for the Palestinians to achieve (4+ / 0-)

                    a state with the West Bank being chopped up into four pieces by Israeli settlements.....

                    so, if you think a two state solution is the answer, then work on removing Israeli settlements from the West Bank, move the "barrier fence" to the side of the 1967 Green Line that is 100% Israelis property, and stop the occupation and economic embargo.  

                    If those things are not done, there will be no two-state solution.

                    And while I hear may people say that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel, facts on the ground tell me it is actually quite the other way around.

                  •  aA, come on (6+ / 0-)

                    be serious, please. No one is advocating war. No one is advocating "destruction". In fact, those who advocate a one-state solution are people concerned with justice, peace and democracy. There is no doubt that a single state, with equal rights for all its citizens is a noble goal. It is totally the opposite of everything you are trying to associate it with - death, destruction, and war.

                    The question is whether it can happen. I'd say no, and that's why I support, at least initially, a two-state solution. But those of us who support a two-state solution should not be ecstatic about it. A two-state solution means that a historic injustice will be left uncorrected. It will mean that the crime of ethnic cleansing will yet again have been rewarded. If it is the case that, unjust as it is, the two-state solution is the only way to peace, then fine, we should support it. But we should do so out of necessity, with reluctance and with a heavy heart.

                    Those who are not yet willing to give up on justice should certainly not be villified in the way you're attempting to do.

                    •  Actually, they are (0+ / 0-)

                      Just do a quick mental fast-forward as to what the first 5 years of somehow creating and then maintaining the state she proposes would entail.

                      If you're lying to yourself, that doesn't mean you're telling the truth to others.

                    •  Also, rejecting the two-state solution (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      another American

                      Is very explicitly advocating war - it's saying, i will not make a deal to stop the fighting, instead I will fight until we have the whole thing.

                      There's no other way to read it.

                      •  You can't read anything with blinders. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        anonymousredvest18, heathlander

                        Both a one-state and a two-state solution could conceivably work. I support the former ideally, and the latter secondarily. Either would be preferable to the status quo.

                        ...hey bobby marley / sing something good to me / this world go crazy / it's an emergency...

                        by Diaries on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:24:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  That's silly (3+ / 0-)

                        So I suppose Arafat was "advocating war" when he rejected the bantustan solution offered at Camp David in 2000? Of course not - the Palestinians are totally legitimate in demanding that their legal rights are respected. It was Barak, in 2000, who "advocated war" when he refused to offer a reasonable (reasonable by the standard of the law, not by the standard of Israel's desires) settlement.

                        It is certainly the case that the one-state solution would be better, ideally, than the two-state solution. But I agree with Prof. Finkelstein when he says that Israel would have to change so radically before it would accept a one-state solution that to continue to demand it is to effectively condemn another two generations of Palestinian refugees to lives of misery and despair.

                        I can't do that, and so I support the two-state settlement. But, as I say, I do that out of reluctance, not with glee.

                        In any event, it's up to the Palestinians to decide for themselves. We are not acting as diplomats here. We are analysts, and as an analyst it is certainly legitimate to advocate, as umkahlil does, in favour of a one-state settlement.

                        •  Arafat didn't negotiate (0+ / 0-)

                          The bantustan thing has been debunked dozens of times here, so I won't bother to do so again.

                          But the telling detail is that Arafat walked away from the talks.  He didn't offer a single counter-proposal on anything, very similarly to Umkahlil's attitude here when she is presented with ideas for peace.  

                          So yeah, he walked away, chose the intifada instead, and they lost.  I'm sympathetic to the Palestinians as a people but absolutely not as a political movement - they're reaping what their leaders have sown.  

                          That's ok, give it 10 years and we'll have a new wall along a more appropriate path, whether the Palestinians "approve" of it or not.

                          •  Well... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            anonymousredvest18, Diaries

                            it hasn't been "debunked", but that's not the point here. For the sake of this argument, pretend that my characterisation of Camp David is accurate.

                            The point it shows, and the point I was making, is that it's surely perverse to accuse one side of "advocating war" simply because they insist that their legal rights be recognised. It is surely more accurate to accuse those who are denying people their legal rights of "advocating war".

                          •  Well, one side walked away (0+ / 0-)

                            and one side started the fighting.  The same side lost and now doesn't seem to be any closer to making concessions than before.

                            Both sides have to compromise here.

                          •  Hang on - when? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Chilean Jew

                            In 2000? If so, then you keep missing the point. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Camp David at all, because that's not the point I was making. It was just meant to be an example.

                            The point is that one should surely condemn those who seek to deny others their legal rights, not those who stand up for them.

                            (And saying that "both sides have to compromise" is meaningless. If we view it through the only framework that matters - that of international law - Israel is being asked to compromise on precisely nothing. What we're all discussing is simply to what extent the Palestinians should compromise.)

                          •  If international law is all the matters (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            then I'm sure you know that occupation in and of itself is not illegal.

                            There's very little precedent for an occupying power willfully giving up its military advantage without some kind of agreement. I can't think of any such case offhand in modern history.

                            Israel is being asked to compromise on something pretty substantial, particularly considering the stance of the current Palestinian government, such as it is.

                          •  UNSC 242 is legally binding, (0+ / 0-)

                            as are all Security Council resolutions. It is also a fundamental principle of international law that it is "inadmissable to acquire territory by war". Hence, Israel must withdraw.

                          •  UNSC resolution 242 is indeed binding. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            another American, unfounded

                            If you're familiar with the deliberations that lead to it, and have actually read the text, you'll see it doesn't require Israel to withdraw from ALL the territories it gained control of during the 1967 war. This is reflected both in the English and the French texts.

                            There is no instrument in international law that says occupation in and of itself is illegal. This is a fact.

                            It is "inadmissible to acquire territory by war" means you can't annex territory, it doesn't mean you can't occupy it. In most wars someone occupies someone else's land. That's how wars go.
                            So the annexation of East Jerusalem for example is illegal, and most (if not all) countries don't recognize it, and rightly so.

                            By the way, I agree that Israel should withdraw. I think this should happen as part of a comprehensive peace deal. Just like what happened with Egypt.

                          •  Yeh, and hence the occupation must be temporary (0+ / 0-)

                            otherwise it is the de facto acquiring of territory by law. And yeh, I'm familiar with the whole 242 "debate" - it's clear what was meant. At the most, what was talked about were "mutual" and "minor" border alterations.

                            Occupations are only OK during the conflict. You don't continue occupying after the conflict is over, otherwise that's de facto annexation. Therefore, in the context of a peace settlement, Israel has to withdraw, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissable to acquire territory by war.

                            So I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing. The point is not that Israel's occupation has been instrinsically illegal thus far, but that a peace settlement will require it, under international law, to withdraw. Anything else is annexation, illegal under international law.

                            That's what I said. Israel is being asked to compromise on precisely and exactly nothing.

                          •  This is exactly what I was arguing (0+ / 0-)

                            Therefore, in the context of a peace settlement, Israel has to withdraw, in accordance with the principle of international law that it is inadmissable to acquire territory by war.

                            See my comment right above yours, last paragraph.

                          •  Yes, exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            which is why I said that I'm not sure what you're arguing against. What you said was actually in complete agreement with what I said, but you presented it as a disagreement, hence my confusion.

                          •  Even assuming arguendo that (0+ / 0-)

                            your characterization of Camp Davis is correct, you fail to analyze Arafat's rejection of Clinton Peace Parameters.

                            Al Gore should be president.

                            by another American on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:46:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Look, my point was not to analyze the peace (0+ / 0-)

                            process. That was just an example of a totally different point.

                    •  A single state (0+ / 0-)

                      is a noble goal if you think it can happen peacefully.

                      Otherwise, you're just prolonging the conflict by putting false hope in people's hearts and making them dig in their heels waiting to get their "rights" (I'm still waiting for someone to show me the legal instrument that says people can inherit refugee status or can be refugees from a place they never set foot in, but that's for another discussion).

            •  Yes, you are my enemy. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              unfounded, zemblan, dfb1968

              You ask for the destruction of the homeland of my family.

              President of the Elders of Zion Chapter 112

              by Pumpkinlove on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:14:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Was it BG (0+ / 0-)

            or Golda that talked about the White Paper and Hitler, as you've very eloquently paraphrased?

            "I hate Illinois Nazis" - Jake

            by dfb1968 on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:26:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "If the Jews gave themselves the right to go back after two thousand years I should have that right, too," he said.

      That is hard to argue with.

      I am sure that before "God gave Israel to the Jews", someone else owned that land (the Philistines)?

      So, what we have here are the Zionists claiming a "special divine right from God", which places them in similar company with Bin Laden & such.

      Anybody who claims their rights from God scare me. I am sure that the Spanish conquistators washed their buchery of native Americans in the soothing notion that they were doing "God's work".

    •  So you want an end to Israel. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      President of the Elders of Zion Chapter 112

      by Pumpkinlove on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:12:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you refuse to give (0+ / 0-)

      a straight answer to a straight question?  

      Punch up your blogs and publications with cartoons from independent lefty artists.

      by dhonig on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (61)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (24)
  • Environment (22)
  • Law (20)
  • Science (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site