Syria…Iran…And Israel…Peace or War
by Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad ~ April 23rd, 2008. Filed under: Iranian Issues, Israeli, Syrian Issues.Serious statements were made yesterday about peace and negotiations between Israel and Syria. Some Syrian newspapers mentioned that Israel declared that the withdrawal from the Golan could be made in order to achieve peace with Syria.
It is well known that the media in Syria is well ruled by the government and nothing could be reported or written in the newspapers and the media without passing through the government’s checks. Also Bashar ilasad the Syrian president said that almost eighty five percent of the obstacles have been solved between his country and Israel.
If Israel is really working seriously in its indirect negotiations with Syria then this could be a smart plan to solve out what has been preventing the two countries from making peace and made Syria cooperate with Iran.
The main reason for any possible will from Israel to make peace with Syria is to isolate Iran in order to face it without its allies because once peace is made with Syria then also Hezballah will have no support and will be isolated too.
This does not mean that peace is knocking on the doors, Indeed it will take the both countries several years to reach a final agreement between them if they are really working secretly and are negotiation too because they need to prepare their peoples to accept the new change. Beside that the internal political situation also affections on the ability of signing or reaching such an agreement with regard to the national security and needs that really affect on the decisions specially in Israel.
The real effect on any future changes toward peace in the region does really depend on the future President of the White House and his or her agendas of how to deal with the conflicts in the Middle East.
From the other side, we should acknowledge that Iran won’t sit silently without doing anything while its allies are being pulled toward an agreement. Iran’s nuclear program will really affect on its activities and decisions in the area.
By looking at the situation we are sure that Israel and Iran will face each other either by their allies or in a direct way because neither of them accepts the idea of living in a world that includes the other side and this may lead to destruction and another World War that will be the most dangerous because of the difference in the beliefs and religions.
Tags: abu, east, iran, israel, middle, peace, post, Syria, war, zayyad, ziadRelated posts
| Iranian Issues, Israeli, Syrian Issues 1 views |
Loading ...
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi. I am a long time reader. I wanted to say that I like your blog and the layout.
Peter Quinn
April 25th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
You are welcomed, thank you!
April 28th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Hi Ziad,
Thanks for your analysis. I have some questions.
My understanding is that hegemony over Lebanon is critical for Syria, especially its economy. Without Hisbollah Syria would lack the tools needed to get its influence in Lebanon back to the level before the so-called Cedar Revolution.
The Golan heights on the other hand are more of a prestige object. It would be nice to have them back. However, they would not be worth the price of giving up Hisbollah and Lebanon.
Your last paragraph is just false. Israel could and did live with Iran under the Mullahs for years now. What Israel cannot accept are WMD in the hands of people openly calling for Israel’s destruction and who could?
April 28th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Heyz Ruth
I may have some answers for your questions. Let us first start with what you called the Cedar Revolution. Lebanon after the assassination of Rafeek ilhariri witnessed several changes that were made by several intelligence agencies in the world. Until this moment no one did prove that Syria was behind this assassination, indeed I do remember that almost before a month the international investigation team said that a criminal movement was behind it (which could be created by the Mosad for example?)
Anyways Syria was immediately blamed and a new movement was started and called the Cedar revolution. It is clear that in the Lebanese playground the United States is acting by using those who call their selves the Cedar revolution and Iran is also having a part in the game by using Hezballah. As usual great powers play their game in other countries. It is not a matter of a revolution or only interests in economy or anything else, here we are talking about a conflict in beliefs, religions, and lands that were taken by force.
This country includes two directions that one of them believes in establishing a new force in the Middle East that does not follow the democratic plan of George Bush that brought us the Iraqi war and more violence in the region and at the same time follows Iran. The other direction that includes the sunah and a part of the Christians followed the United States and believes in the American project in the Middle East. As a fact the Golan Heights are not a prestige object but indeed the center of the conflict that did not end until now between Israel and Syria.
We are talking about thousands of Syrians that live in these lands and does not hold any nationality until today. Syria has been controlling Lebanon since the agreement of the Taef that stopped the blood bath that this country has been living since it was controlled and directed towards war by the Israeli Mosad that supported the Kataeb in killing whom they killed from Palestinians and other massacres.
I was surprised by what you said concerning my last paragraph and the reason you gave: you are completely right that Israel did accept living with Iran in the time of the Shah and not the Mullah, but what is true too that the Shah was one of the American allies in the Middle East. Iran at that time was the second important power in the area because it protected and captured the Middle East from the West side and Israel did the same work from the East side. This prevented the creation of any new power that was against the West. Syria by the way is an old friend of Iran and would prefer standing behind it in any fight, and does not wish to become an independent power in facing the U.S and Israel.
When I said Israel and Iran will soon go to war because they cant accept the idea of living in the same world, I meant by that the Iranian She’a thoughts and beliefs and the system that is governing their, and at the same time I meant the Zionist Israeli beliefs that say that they can protect their selves only by using force and ASSASINATING anyone that they consider a terrorist or a risk on the security of the Israeli state (as what the last Israeli assassination did in Gaza today and resulted in killing 4 children that are under six).
The truth is that the conflict is a conflict of belief and faith that could only end by changing those who keep on leading the people toward the extremist. The WMD that you are talking about is already in the hands of Israel and who gave it the right to have it was the great power that is ruling the world now and also did what it did in Hiroshima. You should know that I am not supporting Iran or its wishes to rule in the Middle East in any way, but I do really want you to know that Israel also would do the same and destroy a whole people if they feel they are in danger.
Although Israel is a modern democratic strong country but it is still until this moment acting the worst and last occupation in the history that included taking lands from its owners and also doing everything they can to transport them to an other place. A vision of Peace includes the respect for the other people that lives beside you and accepting their right in living in it independently with their rights and own control, and not by building a wall that looks like the Berlin wall. The separation between religion and the system is the best for bringing a better relation between countries and this is almost impossible.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Hi Ziad,
You probably lost my interest already with your conspiracy theories.
By the way you are factually wrong on a number of issues.
A significant part of the Druze population of the Golan heights are stateless because of their own choosing. Israeli citizenship is theirs for the asking, however, they define themselves as Syrians and therefore do not accept it.
Fact is that the Iranian revolution took place in 1979. Since then Israel has not attacked Iran or rhetorically prepared war against Iran. So Israel can and has lived with Iran under the Mullahs for 30 years.
Israel’s alleged nuclear weapons were not supplied by the USA but in cooperation with France.
Forget it.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
And by the way, the tragic death of a mother and four of her children in Beit Hanoun yesterday cannot be defined as an assassination without ill-will and bias against Israel.
There is no doubt that gunmen were and are operating from civilian surroundings in Beit Hanoun. The family was used as human shields, which is a war crime according to the IV. Geneva Convention.
It is quite possible that the family was not hit directly by Israeli shell(s) but were killed by a secondary explosion when ammunition transported by Palestinian gunmen was hit.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Dear Ruth
I completely respect you and your ideas and analysis and do not consider you WRONG or lost interest in what you say because I may learn something from what you say. Just remember that always you can get two versions for each story and this is exactly what was happening between what I was saying and you were saying.
The Druze population refused the Israeli citizenship as I did too because I and them does not consider ourselves as Israelis and we are still considered as people under occupation that deserve all the rights the international laws give for us. Occupying a land does not give you the right to change the ID of its people . About Iran I completely agree with you that Israel lived with it when it did not represent a straight danger on its national security.
Iran has changed and this change was supported by so many Iranians as also Hamas did when it won the Palestinian elections. The people in the Middle East followed the extremist because they lost faith in us who believe in peace and harmony. The violence that this are witnessed made both Arabs and Israelis believe that security and right can be brought by force and this what is supposed to be changed.
I did not say that the Israeli nuclear weapons were SUPPLIED by the United States, but I said that Israel was supported to start its nuclear project by the United States. About the family in Gaza that was killed, they were not used as human shield. Israel has a policy of assassination that says that each terrorist should be killed once there is a chance to do so, even though sometimes there will be civilian victims but its better than having Israeli victims.
I once was told by an Israeli that his relative was working in the Israeli Air Force: he told me that when we strike we know that there may be some victims but we can do nothing else because we want to prevent having Israeli victims. Ruth I just want you to know that even you are a PRO Israel or an Israeli you should learn that when you analyze you must keep your emotions away and every other thing that you learned from your background.
This what the Israeli Universities teach when you are learning International Relations or Political science. I for example has no problem in saying that Hamas is acting wrong and that each attack that is done inside Israel is considered a terrorist attack even though I am a Palestinian, but on the other side I do also study the Israeli policy and say what is wrong with it and what is right.
Killing and using force will make the both sides become strong believers of violence and only peace and understanding each other can bring us somewhere where peace can be made. By the Way what I said was not conspiracy theories but indeed the truth of what is going here. You may have emotionally refused what I said, but again I am telling you as I was told by professors and political analysis that has been working in politics since tens of years that at this time the Middle East is being divided into a Pro American project that includes Israel, the Arab countries and the PLO that is represented by Abu Mazen, and on the other side we have the Pro Islamic project that includes Syria, Iran, Hamas, Hezballah, and Palestinian refugees movements.
This does not mean that I support any of them, but you should know that this is extremely dangerous and will bring bad results in the future. Finally I do find you interesting and wish to keep on discussing ideas and thoughts with you.
Yours truly,
Ziad
April 30th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Hi Ziad,
Thanks for your kind and patient words.
I am Israeli and I work hard to keep myself informed since the start of the so-called Al-Aksa intifada.
Israeli universities and professors are nothing that I can be awed with. I happen to know that most departments are left wing wall to wall. Since I have my own master’s degree in modern history I feel quite competent to form my own opinions without working in academia.
From the point of view of international law Israel’s first priority must be to safeguard the lives, health and property of its own citizens. Actions against Palestinian terrors must be proportionate, meaning that the risks for Palestinian cilivians must not be excessive versus the danger to Israeli citizens if the action is not taken. It is very hard to make such decisions - especially since intelligence are not hard data - and Israel has been known to err in both directions.
The same international law states quite clearly that operating out of civilian areas does not convey any immunity and that using human shields is a war crime.
Not even Hamas is denying that there were gunmen operating near the family home, so this family was used as human shields. It looks also quite likely that they were killed by the secondary explosion of ammunition or explosives in the possession of the gunmen. The lack of any picture of the damaged house is persuasive, it would probably convey information about the cause of the explosion and is therefore suppressed. If you cannot accept the possibility of this scenario than you are in emotional denial.
I am not interested in generalized psychology of conflict and I do not think that either of us can learn anything from such platitudes.
I would be interested to look at very specific incidents and compare our reading of them. Your take of “the truth” may not be compelling to me but it could offer me a different angle and vice versa.
If I understand you correctly you are not Druze but a Palestinian from East Jerusalem having refused Israeli citizenship? You are probably studying at Hebrew University?
I quite agree that the Iranian revolution had broad popular support. By now the Iranian people has “enjoyed” the Mullahs for so long that they are very popular any more. However, they have a good grip on power in Iran and do not intend to let go any time soon.
Hamas also won in what were more or less fair elections showing that they were supported by roughly half the Palestinian electorate. I would hope that slowly the people in Gaza are less impressed with the Islamist rhetoric but I have no way to know. It will probably take longer and they might turn to even more extremist demagogues.
You are not trying to link the Iranian revolution to the Palestinian problem, are you?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Heyz Ruth
Thank you for your comments, i enjoyed reading them. Anyways concerning the Israeli universities, there may be some left party people teaching or studying in it but i do not agree that from wall to wall, they all hold the same vision. Indeed these educated people try to find the best strategies and ideologies that can break through the conflict. I understand that you are an Israeli and a strong believer of the right of Israel to live and also do anything to protect its civilians.
I respect your view but what if the Palestinians come out and say too that they have the right to protect their people which means they can through missiles from Gaza every day to make a pressure on Israel or attack Israeli soldiers at anywhere in the sixty seven lands. This will for sure be considered terrorism from the Israeli side and also considered patriotic from the Palestinian side. Israel in reality is still capturing all of the west bank, the sixty seven lands, and almost Gaza. This means that Israel is not fighting another state, but is still facing another people that will always be an obstacle in its way to reach peace, because this people are living with them on the same land.
We always search for laws to support our beliefs. I may tell you now several decisions that were made by the United Nations concerning the occupied land and the refugees and other massacres that happened in the Palestinian lands, but what will i earn from this? What will be gain if you prove to the world that it is terrorism when Palestinians attack Israeli soldiers, or when i convince the world that Israel is the one that came to a land that was never for it and is still acting as South Africa was acting and the British used to act in India to the original people. ME and You and every other Palestinian and Israeli will gain nothing. I can bring you stories that will never end and in a way or another convince you that there is something wrong that your state did but at the end both of us we will lose because we are doing nothing except of our ego and embodying what our communities and religions made us belief.
I didnt deny that Hamas is working from civilian areas because they had no other place to work from. Gaza has been tortured because the people their decided that they Hamas, and Israel and the PLO neglected this wining party and did everything to make it go away by force instead of trying to bring this party and change its directions and methods. This party was brought to us by 62% of the Palestinians that changed their opinion from making peace with Israel into destrying it, as what also happened in Iran. Ruth the truth is what happened to this family is what you said and they probably died from the second explosion but who caused the first explosion and why we chosed to go and make this first explosion?
Anyways i suggest that we stop talking about who is right and who is wrong, because for you, it must be right so you can keep on defending Israel and the center of your beliefs, and for me inside me it may be the same. But i want to tell you how we work and think of every part of this conflict. I am really from East Jerusalem and i study in the Hebrew University. As you saw in the website i am one of ten other JEws, Muslims, and Christians. Between us there is a jewish extremest that happens to be my friend now, a great Jewish man that i respect and i ams ure will be an Israeli leader that will bring security and peace for his people, and at the same time will understand how to do this without more violence. The Muslims and the Christians are Palestinians.
My idea Ruth is that the Israeli people and the Palestinian have been fed up with extreme ideas that says that the only solution is to end the other side and use force to stop it. ALso they believe that the true peace can be only made alone with any other partner. The word terrorism now is the used word by the both sides and they all work of making it worse. I believe that we reached this because of waht we all went through and the it affected us and how we think. If we can reach the education and culture again and try to affect it positivly by saying that it is possible to live with a Palestinian and he or she has the right to live on this land with Israelis in an other state that includes thier rights. And also say that Israel has the right to live in Peace and security side by side with Palestinians, then maybe we can make a change.
You may say this is a dream, but the fact is that i saw it becoming true when we started talking and sitting with extreme thinkers and ordinary people. The educational system, religion, and culture in the both sides try to make it worse. Jews believe in their right to live on all of thise land including the West Bank and Gaza because of what their religion say.
About the Iranian revolution i am not linkin it, but i am telling you that what is happening in the Middle East looks as a Sheea Islamic revolution. Iran inculdes Sheea muslims that always wanted to rule Saudi Arabia and the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. They consider the Suna worse than the Jews.
They are more than eleven kinds and are really different in their ideas and thoughts.
I agree with you that there will be no peace treaty between Israel and Syria. The palestinian and Israeli negotiators could not agree on a basic agreement until now, so how could Syria do.
May i know what you work and whether if you are living in the United States?
Yours
Ziad
April 30th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Hi Ziad
OK, wall to wall is exaggerated, however, there is a overwhelming majority of leftist academics in Israel as in the US. I do not “believe” in Israel’s right of existence, I take it as a given and would not discuss it with anybody. I do not think that Israel may do “anything” to protect its civilians. You would not have written that if you had carefully read what I said about proportionality.
The Palestinians have the right to protect themselves according to the same principles of international law that are binding onto Israel. Missiles into civilian areas are not a legitimate way of warfare but a war crime, attacks on Israeli soldiers on the other hand could be. For my part I differentiate between acts of war and acts of terror, but I grant you that the Israeli media usually blurs the line. The international law of warfare does not demand that the parties are states. Non-state organisations do not get any bonus for their status.
I am not willing to discuss in such an arbitrary way. There are laws, there are laywers and there are courts of laws. International law is not a clear and consistent body but it still exists and is being used. If you can come up with legal sources showing that occupied people have the right to operate from civilian areas and target civilians, then put them on the table and let’s research and discuss their legal standing. “Stories”, however, are not in my mind. I suggested specific incidents before and now added legal sources. All the generic propaganda you seem to refer to is of no interest to me.
Look at Gaza in Google Earth and you will see that there are open fields next to Beit Hanoun. Nobody but the gunmen would have suffered from their exploding ammunition had they been located there. Israel had no way to verify whether they were transporting ammunition and/or explosives. If they had not, the gunmen would still be dead but this unfortunate family would go about their daily lives now. Your implication that Israel should have refrained from hitting the gunmen on the ground that they might be carrying material dangerous to civilians in the surroundings where they choose to be is tantamount to granting immunity to terrorists in general since operating from within a civilian population is one of the basic prinicples of this sort of warefare (war crimes). I hope this is not what you actually believe in.
The people in Gaza did not vote for Hamas as a block. What is your source for the 62%? This is not what I know: http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2006/exitplcfulljan06e.html#votingdistrict
Actually Fatah got the nearly same percentage of the vote in Gaza as in the Westbank (42% and 43% resp.). Hamas in Gaza got the advantage there (48% vs. 41% in the Westbank) by biting into the percentage of the small parties (9% vs. 18%). The violent take-over of Gaza by Hamas in June last year was not legitimated by any election and I doubt that a majority of the population supported and supports it.
For my part I am not talking about absolut right or wrong but on a specific incident where we have a chance to sort out the facts or at least the probabilities. The classification of people is not relevant as long as you keep to the specifics.
As you well know education, media and communications patterns in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority are far from being identical. I am not interested in general clichees. My association especially when you continue with “You may say this is a dream” is John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. I am so fed up with this hynmn for the thoughtless and superficial. Sure, if you disregard all specifics you can live in harmony in a phantasy world of your own choosing and you may even find a few people willing to join you there. For my part I am convinced that there are facts on the ground and reality which we ignore or deny at our own peril. It is not easy to get to the facts and to minimize the distortions in our perception of reality but it is a quest worthwhile.
I happen to be Jewish. Don’t tell me what Jews want and what their religion makes them believe. You are welcome to ask me about it. I do not know enough about Shia and Sunna but it sure looks like the traditional rift is being used right now for power politics.
Even if Israel and the Abbas could come to an agreement this would not allow Syria to forego its alliance with Iran. As we both know, Hamas is on the same axis and Iran is using it successfully to undermine any possible agreement.
I am living in Israel and I am in international sales.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Ruth
I agree with most of what you said, except for the part you angry when i told you what your religion may be saying about your right in living in this land and every part of it. i will be happy if you tell me more because i told you is what i was told about from jews and settlers.
About the international law and everything you mentioned about it, i would like to remind you about lahai which is the international court and what is said about the wall that was built, their desicion changed nothing because Israel does really use what is for its benefit from the law and forget about what may be against its policy.
Ruth the problem is that when we sit to negotiate or talk exactly what happens here happens their. You only talk with me to prove that you are right or the Israeli point of view is right. I am telling you i respect what you say but also the facts tells something else. i would love to go back in history and look of what we achieved as peace demanders since Oslo and until the second Intifada,
The truth is that nothing changed and we stopped at what was done in Oslo. Jerusalem and the refugees case destroyed any chance of making any agremeent because the both sides believe in their right in it. DO you think that the Palestinians will agree of not having their right in having Jerusalem back? do think peace can be made without having full control on the Lands of 1967?
i am sure that neither Abbas nor Fatah nor any other political party or palestinian will agree to forget about these points. I also agree and believe that you and any other jew or the majority will not accept the idea of giving Jerusalem back to the palestinians. All of this comes from one source which is religion that obliged the both sides to believe and act like this. Please Ruth just stop living in one world that talks about terrorism.
Why dont you search in google about a girl that her name is Marianne Saadeh, she is one of our group memebers. Her two years sister was killed and she was injured seriously with her mother and father while they were on their way back home in bethlehem. The IDF said that they shot them by mistake and thought they were another car that had terrorists inside it. So just think about it that not all the israeli activities were against terrorism.
If your body get sick it will naturally try to defned itself and resist the infection. Israel was made on the lands of people who were kicked either to an other place or killed at their place. This is more convincing that the international laws you are talking about.
I am asking you to accept what i say and i respect your point of view and understand why you believe in it. But remember that if you want to serve your country as an Israeli think well about all the Israeli and palestinian victims that died because of our beliefs and try to work for the sake of bringing these two people closer to each other.
By the way i am sure when i tell you that the popularity of Hamas became higher every day Israel striked a new target in Gaza and even in the West Bank. This damage will take years until you can work on convincing the people to believe in peace again. Specially that at this time we see no results at all from all the negotiations.
I am surprised of what you say about the academics that you consider them left side, by the way they are the most educated people that could really understand what is going on. If you are a right side Israeli you should also know that these who you call left sided may be smart enough and think in the way they think to end the conflict and bring real security and peace to their people.
I respect your background and information about the conflict and i really enjoy talking to you. YOu are the kind that should be negotiating so real things will appear and the reality of what Israel wants could be known. It is not enough to say that we want peace, we also need to look at the details.
I know Israelis that rally are patriotic and want a strong jewish state, but they also had the courage to say that Israel is occupying and using its army as an occupying force.
Just one more thing, you are right about what you said of hamas and Iran using it to prevent any agreement, but id Israel and the Palestinians reach a convincing agreement, then it will be easier to convince the palestinians to follow it and will make hamas weaker.
Yours
Ziad
April 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I do not mind writing about the connection between the poeple of Israel and the land of Israel. Do you mind if we put this off for the moment? It is a rather complex topic and I could write separately (and planned to write anyway) a short essay about it.
Yes, this is what I meant when I asked you to put your legal source on the table in order to discuss its legal standing. The International Court did not have the jurisdiction over Israel and therefore we are talking just about an opinion. This opinion happens to set a precedent by stating that states do not have the right to defend themselves against attacks by non-state actors. See: Leanne Piggott: Judges’ ruling rewrites UN Charter on self-defence as cited from The Australian July 2004 here http://forum.hagalil.com/cgi-bin/a/discus.pl?pg=next&topic=279&page=20215. Since this is not a realistic approach, we can already note that this new opinion is universally disregarded (Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, China etc.) and will not stand the test of time as a new understanding of the law.
Ziad, I wanted to start out by establishing the facts. This is impossible if your basic assumption is that you are already in the possession of the facts. You will notice that your way of putting it actually shows that it is you who is convinced to be right, especially since you start your next paragraph with “the truth is” and continue with an over-simplified description of the developments since Oslo.
While there is certainly no peace as a result from the Oslo process I do not agree that nothing has changed. Actually the political landscape has changed very much. I do not think that the Israeli side considered Iran in 1994 and I would be surprised if Arafat and his people could foresee the second Iraq war and the strengthening of Iran into the bargain.
I cannot relate seriously to your following paragraph. We both live in a world where terrorism exists. If we just stop talking about it terrorism will still exist. I told you before that I am convinced that reality exists independently from our feelings and that we ignore or deny it at our peril.
Actually I enjoy our exchange as well – this is the first time in a long time that I have the impression we might actually be able to establish facts we both agree upon. However, we are not in a negotiating position and I think it would be a waste of time (because we could do more useful things in the meantime) if we pretended to. At the moment I can see no value in negotions anyway since there is nobody on the Palestinian side who could deliver. Abbas is just a puppet popped up by the USA and Israel and does not have any mandate for compromise and Hamas is not ready to agree even to the minimum requirements for any negotiations – accepting the other side as someone with legitimate interests and a willingness to honour previous agreements.
I told you I am not interested in stories in our discussions. I wrote already that it is very difficult to weigh the data during a conflict and that Israel has already erred and will make more mistakes. However, making no mistakes ever is certainly not a mandatory clause in the international law of warfare. Israel is trying to minimize the mistakes and there seems to be some progress. The ratio gunmen to civilians killed in Israeli actions for 1007 was 39:1 while at the beginning of the 2nd intifada it was 4:1.
No, I do not agree. The law was set up and as long as it is law we have to relate to it. International law is often called upon against Israel. The state of Israel and I accept that Israel is bound by it, and you have to accept that the Palestinian people is also bound by it.
Please cut the suggestions how I should serve my country. I am not using moralizing and emotional appeals against you. Such language should not be part of discussions. Nobody died (so far, thank God) because of my personal beliefs and I sure hope you can say the same about yourselves. I think it is [reposterous pretending that you and me have any chance of bringing out peoples closer to each other at this stage. We cannot even establish so far what is fact and what is propaganda and whether the law should be applicable equally. If we both succeed in arguing in a polite and factual way we should be content with ourselves.
As far as I know from inter-Palestinian polls the Palestinian people were not believing in peace even in 1994-1996, see here http://forum.hagalil.com/board-a/messages/8/14103.html#POST54016. You may be right that the hatred is so deep that they blame Israel for everything. This would be very depressing and I hope that you are not 100% correct.
The classifying of people should not be relevant. In what way are our arguments more logical if we define ourselves left, right, whatever? For your information when I started out, it was from the superficial leftist academical view. In October 2000 realized that I had no clue what had happened and why. I am not longer expecting that “the left” or anybody knows best. After all we are rather a long way from Peres “New Middle East” or “Peace Now”, aren’t we? I want to understand for myself. I would even say that I have made some progess. My political predictions are less off target than previously. I have been writing on the Internet all these years, so I can check the record. I apolgize but most of my writing has been in German, so you will probably hit upon a language barrier if you would like to check it out.
I have no problem to agree that Israel is currently occupying territories which have no clear legal status and that its army is therefore also in the occupying business. Probably in contrast to you I do not think that “occupation” can be defined as evil per se. International law does not outlaw occuption in principle.
I do not think that any paper agreement would be in Israel’s interest.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
i’m quite glad that my country (w-germany) once was occupied by at least three democratic states. perhaps the palestinians needs a konrad adenauer…
May 1st, 2008 at 8:39 am
We need a leader like konrad adenauer, but you should remember that in Palestine the conflict and occupation are different than what it used to be in w.germany. because here the Israelis and the Palestinians are fighting on the only land they have to live in, but at the time of w.germany those who occupied it had homes that they can return to.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Israel: People – God – Land
Foreword:
I am not living according to orthodox demands. At the same time I do not accept the classification secular. I have not had a Jewish education as a child and I am working to broaden my knowledge and understanding. These are my thoughts based on a Talmud course I attended this past winter. I wrote about it already in German here http://beer7.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/kulturpessismus/ and here http://beer7.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/gestern-im-shiur-2/. They are not identical to the thoughts of our teacher – there was actually never any consent about anything within our study group which is as it should be.
Thora: Promise
God promised the land to the numerous (another promise) descendants of Avraham Avinu (our father) in the Thora. When the pledge is made Avram (as he was then called) was already halfway there. He had left his father’s house and started upon his journey without knowing where he should go, an act of faith. However, Avraham had to leave the land because of a draught and went to Egypt. This pattern repeats itself in the Thora and in history. In the time of Josef his clan came to Egypt for the same reason.
People
Israel was the name given to Jacov (Josef’s father) after he wrestled with a mysterious force and overcoming it demanded its blessing. His sons and their descendants became Bnei Israel (sons of Israel). In Egypt they outgrew the clan and became a people. With their departure from Egypt under the leadership of Moshe Morenu (our teacher) we date the birth of the people of Israel. Now we have the first part of the trinity.
God
At Mount Sinai the people of Israel accepted the convenant with God and His law. This adds the second part of the trinity.
Land
The land was thus the last component and it was conditioned from the beginning on the relationship between the people and God. (2. Mos. 23.20 ff)
However, it was made clear that the people of Israel were expected to fight for the land themselves. When the report of the representatives of the 12 tribes who were sent ahead on a reconnaissance mission led to a sinking of morale the people were punished by 40 years in the desert. A subsequent attempt to conquer the land failed because God was not with it. (4. Mos. 33-34).
It is my understanding that already at this stage in the Thora the conditions are laid out: The land of Israel was promised to the people of Israel by the God of Israel. However, it is not a gift to be passively received, it has to be fought for and God’s commandements must be kept.
Later on there were, of course, the exiles of Israel presented as divine punishments. Any returnal to the land therefore takes the character of a divine blessing. Again, however, we see that the people cannot lean back and wait for the blessing, they have to bring it about themselves.
Talmud
As we all know there are Haredim which reject the modern State of Israel as a sacrilege while there are other Orthodox Jews who feel that the State of Israel is based on divine rights.
Both approaches go back to Ketubot 110 and 111 in the Babylonian Talmud which is a dialogue between rabbies Jehuda und Zeira. The first is an early “Zionist” while the later opposes the return to the land.
“Based on passages in Shir ha-Shirim (2:7, 3:5, 8:4), Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Hanina understands that there are three oaths that bind the Jewish people in their relationship with the non-Jewish world:
1. That the Jews should not return to the Land of Israel be-homah – “like a wall”
2. That the Jews should not rebel against the nations of the world
3. That the nations of the world should not oppress the Jewish people overmuch.”
Cited from Steinsaltz
My opinion
My feeling is that these three conditions were fulfilled in inverted order:
The Shoah (which was perpetrated by the Nazis and their allies but enabled by the indifference of the rest of the world) can certainly be defined as “overmuch oppression”. Since the United Nations themselves voted for the establishment of the State of Israel there was not rebellion against the nations of the world. Therefore the return in mass was permitted.
The people of Israel in our times have been granted the blessing of establishing our own state in the land of Israel. This is not an unconditional and irrevocable gift but rather a loan stipulating that we must defend our state and strive to adhere to ethical standards at the same time. If we fail to fulfill these two basic conditions we may lose the land again.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ziad, if I understand your remark to Christian correctly you claim all of the former British Mandate of Palestine for the Palestinians. If “occupation” referred only to the land conquered in 1967 by Israel, you would not state that the “occupier” has nowhere else to return to.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Ruth i was talking about the whole Palestine that includes the lands that were occupied in 1948 and in 1967. Israel was not originally standing on the lands of 1948 but were given the lands to make their home state on it. In order to reach an agreement the Palestinians admit the right of Israel to be a free country that lives with peace and security in the 1948 lands if they admit the right of the Palestinians to live free with peace and security on the lands of 1967.
When i said they have nowhere else to return to, i meant that the Israelis and the Palestinians are in a continued conflict because they both live beside each other and until this moment has no trust in each other. Israel will always has the idea of how much it is important that they bring security to its people and this means that no matter what Palestinians should not become stronger or independent in a land that is near Israel.
Above all of this, you should not forget the religious beliefs that the both sides has of their right in living in the whole land of Palestine.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Ziad,
I understand that you are not accpeting the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state in any borders in former Palestine.
Did you read my take on the Jewish religioes approach to the land of Israel? I did not extend it to the question of whether this includes the right to live in all of the territories. My answer to that is principally yes, however, this right may have to be weighed against the requirements of the Palestinian people (see under ethical standards) since one commandment impressed on us time and again is that we must not oppress the stranger in our midst.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ziad,
did you add a sentence to your above comment or was my reading sloppy. I see now that you are willing to accept Israel in the 1948 borders.
Two more remarks to that: Of course, there was no Palestinian state ever in this territory.
There are actually Palestinians living in the state of Israel. In an peace agreement worth its name I would expect that Jews may also live in any sovereign state of Palestine.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Ruth
It seems that you didnt read everything i wrote. I said that i accept and respect an Israeli state in the 1948 lands and i even object and disagree with any organization that could attack any object inside it and even consider that terrorism. Is this enough so you can be convinced that i am not right and i am on the left side
Anyways from my position as a Palestinian that considers East Jerusalem a part of the future Palestinian State that also includes the West Bank and Gaza agree that the Israeli State can be a Jewish State, but i am not sure that the Palestinians inside Israel will agree with such an Idea. Any Jew should be welcome to live in any future Palestinian State. I should remind you that Jews prefered in the past to live under Islamic governing and enjoyed their rights while living with them, while on the other side everyone saw what happened when jews lived under other systems and religions.
Ruth you defend by saying that Israel killed this Intifada less than the first one, who gave them the right to kill? You are not concerned about stories because stories are facts and show the truth on the ground.
“Probably in contrast to you I do not think that “occupation” can be defined as evil per se. International law does not outlaw occuption in principle.”
What does this mean? Occupation is legal? Anyways i agree with you that Palestinians should be bound to law as i said before.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
Yes, Ziad, occupation can be legal and the occupation of the territories is legal.
Your words about accepting the state of Israel seem empty since you do not accept its right to self-defence. Self-defence does confer the right to kill according to any body of law I know.
You repeat once more that you believe to be in possession of “the truth” and that I should just accept it.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
I hope I am not posting a double entry but I cannot see my last text.
Ziad, it seems to be that your accepting Israel’s existence is empty words, since you do not accept its right to self-defence. Self-defence does confer the right to kill in any body of law I am aware of.
Yes, occupation can be legal and the specific occupation we are talking about is legal according to international law.
You realize that you once more claim to be in the possession of “the truth” and that I should just accept it?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ruth, it is easy to say that Israel should exist and also say that it has the right to self defence, and on the other side to say that Palestinians has the right to exist in their own state and also has the right to defend theirselves from Israel and resist their occupation. By this we creat two contradicitng poles that will never reach any place. Also if International law says that occupation is legal then also fighting to reoccupy what ahs been occupied is legal…if we talk like this will we reach any where? I will say it in an other way and tell me what you think? Israel has the right to exist and to protect its citizens but also has the duty of ending the occupation of the 1967 lands and give the palestinians the right to trule their slevs. This may help in ending the violence and the terrorist attacks against Israelis inside the 1967 lands. Palestinians from their side has the right too to exist and have their own independent state int he 1967 lands and should stop any attacks against Israelis inside the 1948 Israel. By the way i didnt mean that you have to accept what i said by saying the Truth…Sorry for that.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Occupation even if legal is not a healthy thing for any society. This has dawned upon Israel for some time now.
The problem is that there seems to be no way to end the occupation. Negotiations have not lead to any peaceful settlements and there is less and less of a possible partner for negotiations around. Unilateral withdrawals have shown that they encourage more and more forecful attacks against Israel. Self-rule in Gaza also does not seem to be an immediate success.
In the meantime we might just have to going on occupying the territories.
Resistance against occupation is also lawful as long as it is within the framework of the international law of warfare and we both agree that most of the Palestinian resistance is disregarding it.
My impression is that the Palestinian “resistance” is mostly still a fight for the destruction of Israel and not for a Palestinian state within the 67 territories. What is happening around us makes only sense if I define this target. Otherwise I would have to conclude that Palestinians must be extremely stupid since their actions are usually counterproductive if we define the Palestinian state as the goal.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ruth, I agree with you. The resistance that the Palestinians used to do at the First Intifada used to be more worthing than this one. I dont agree with you that the Palestinians act like this because they are stupid. The Culture and community change they witnessed since Oslo and the building of the PAlestinian Authority made them go through a difficult change.
Almost all of the Palestinians movements failed to change from Resistance movements into Political movements that know how to act and work democraticly. There are several reasons for this and it is complicated. Hamas refused after Oslo to join the other Palestinian movements and played the role of the True Palestinian soul that refused to sell its beliefs and that will continue on fighting.
Now Hamas failed in what it created before: Hamas went to the elections and now it cant change its basics that it used to convince the Palestinians to vote for it and change into a real Political Party that knows how to bring rights without violence. IF Palestinians succeed in returning to the peaceful resistance that they used to do before they will reach the Palestinian State faster than using any other method, but this is hard to be done because now the Palestinians have a body that represent them which is the Palestinian Authority and can be blamed or targeted easily.
I hope that they will succeed in making this change and i am sure that they will if they see results from any peace effort and people work to spread again the culture of peace and accepting the right of the other to live. This should teached to the both peoples the ISraeli and the Palestinian. I see too that there is no chance for peace now and it will never be done without pressure on the both sides.
Imagine if everything is made and all the attacks are stopped and the Israelis and the Palestinians reach the needed situation to make peace with a partner as you say, will ISrael be ready to give the Palestinians the 1967 lands and solve the East JErusalema nd Refugees cases with them? i find it hard to be done and that true sacrifices from the both sides are needed to solve this.
By the way the meanwhile Palestinian partner was brought by Israel and the U.S becuase they thought that he will be able to take desicions and control, and he failed in this. Imagine two strong right leaders like Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat meeting together and making peace would they have suceeded?
May 1st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Hi Ziad,
You misread me. I do not think that Palestinians are stupid. Therefore I do not believe that a state of Palestine in the 67 territories is really at the top of their priorities. Maybe part of this is subconscious.
Occupation is not healthy for any society. Hatred and terror is even more erosive for any society. I am afraid that Palestinian society has been impregnated is in mortal danger or even already lost.
Rabin was strong. He was Mr. Security while Sharon had the stain from Sabra and Shatilla (and deceiving his prime minister) against his name.
Arafat was not really interested. His vested interest was in the continuation of the Palestinian struggle as personified by himself, self-rule, the people be damned. We know that he was not only not interested in democracy, he did his utmost to uproot whatever loacal democratic sprouts had developed during the first intifada.
It was a serious mistake by Israel believing that Arafat would fight terror for them and that they therefore should accept or even welcome his autocratic approach to the Palestinian people.
I am pretty sure that Rabin’s murder did not “derail the peace progress”. Rabin would have reacted to the increasing terror within a few months and since he had much more backing in the Israeli population than Netanyahyu, he could have been more ruthless and determined.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Ruth
Well Rabin was srong and may have reacted more ruthless. i agree with you but he may had more power to take desicions such as Oslo. Anyways Arafat was not the same as you are saying. Well it is difficult to give chance for democracy to be working naturaly while Israel demanded from him to stop any activities of Palestinian movements.
For example he prevented Hamas from becoming stronger in Gaza at his time because this could have made them stronger and attack more Israel. at the same time he supported several political parties that were a part of the PLO and even payed their budget. Sharon too when he withdrew from Gaza used force to prevent anyone from stopping him, he even obliged some ministers to vote for his plan. Sometimes democracy prevents hard desicions.
Arafat at the same time is the most one that gave aid and support for the Palestinian people. he was the most supported and had the power to control. He was a Political and an Army man at the same time. If you look at the history of the Palestinian fight he is considered by all of the Palestinian movements as a signal of of this resistance.
If Peace talks succeeded after Oslo and Barak gave more in Camp David i am sure he was to prevent any attack against Israel.
He is the Ben Gorion of the Palestinians.
ZIad
May 4th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Oh no, Ziad,
Arafat was no Ben Gurion. I agree that he managed to be regarded as the personified Palestinian restistance. However, you should look beyond his public image.
Israel demanded from Arafat to stop terror. You are not equating operating terror organisations with political parties?!
Sharon was not the high guardian of democratic niceties, for sure, but he had to function within a democratic system and that’s what he did.
Arafat on the other hand had no intention whatsoever to accept the limitations of democracy.
see http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-mowbray042502.asp
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp477.htm
Arafat could not have given up the terror option under any circumstances. After all he did not have (m) any other cards to his game.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
[...] aber dazu, sie zu bejahen. Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad, mit dem ich auf seinem Blog auch schon zu diskutieren versuchte, ist ein gutes [...]