Palestine (the victims of victims)


Christopher Jones writes: I believe that it has never been clearly established what exactly was offered to Arafat during his talks with Clinton and Barak.  (I do not consider Clinton very reliable)  More than once, I have heard that Barak's offer was a "motheaten" Palestine.  Let's be clear:  to accept Israeli settlements anyplace on the West Bank and Gaza, Arafat could have been seen as condoning the Israeli aggression of 1967.  Peace has to built on the withdrawl of Israel exactly to its pre-1967 borders; the recognition of a Palestinian state and the payment of compensation to Palestinian families dispossessed in 1948.  Arab Jerusalem must be returned to Palestine.  It is that simple.  This world "cancer" has gone far enough: through Istvan Simon's remarks we can deduce that Jews see themselves as superior beings that answer to another standard than we, mere mortal gentiles.  Mr Simon thinks that Israelis may do as they please in the Middle East.  The tape from Usamah bin Laden shows that some Moslems are not willing to tolerate the situation any further.  This is the "firestorm" I have always warned about.

RH: From my readings, Christopher is correct about the Clinton/ Arafat/ Barak talks.

Middle East specialist Michael Margulies writes:
This is a 2002 map of the various Israel-designated areas in the West Bank.
<http://www.poica.org/casestudies/security-zones/israeli-security-zone.jpg>

Between the Eastern and Western Security Zones, the "Nature Reserve" and "Area B" Zones, what exactly was left for Arafat  to accept? "Area A" Zones make up less than 10% of the West bank, and are 14 separate pieces of land.

Although this is my area of focus, I generally tend to stay away from these informal discussions; supporters of Israel have made up their minds IN SPITE OF THE FACTS, and no amount of open and honest debate will persuade them otherwise. For them, Israel is a lily-white ivory tower of Justice, a bastion of culture in an otherwise savage area of the world.

The general argument seems to go along the lines of "We're only defending ourselves from <insert villain of the week's name here>, and we are free to use whatever means we see fit". Secular American Jewry is lightning-fast to invoke Israel as the only democracy "like America" in the Middle East, but also conveniently overlooks the fact that Israel has no Constitution nor Bill of Rights. In the end, none of this really matters as the Palestinians have already lost, they just don't know it.  It is only a matter of time (15, 20 years?) and by attrition that the full extent of the Israeli victory will become apparent.

Social justice is the bell peal of the modern world, so what about justice for the 100's of Christian families run out of their homes and off their land in Gaza and the West bank by Hamas thugs with the tacit approval of the Palestinian "government"? Or the terror that non-Muslims in Muslim countries have to live with every day? Forgive me if my heart doesn't break for the plight of the Palestinians, because I know it would be much, much worse if the shoe were on the other, larger, Foot.


Your comments are invited. Read the home page of the World Association of International Studies (WAIS) by simply double-clicking on:   http://wais.stanford.edu Mail to Ronald Hilton, Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA 94305-6010. Please inform us of any change of e-mail address.

Ronald Hilton 2004

Top

last updated: November 28, 2004