"ayalon-Nusseibeh" and the Geneva Accord

[Jorge]

A Brain Strain Quiz for IsraelForum members:

1) What do the following American personalities: McFarlane, Lake, Allen and Brzezinski, have in common?

2) What do the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration of Principles and the Geneva Accord, have in common?

3) What’s the link between 1) and 2)?


Answers to the above questions may be sent to this Thread; the correct Answers will be published in my following Post. (Sorry, no prices promised)

[Noam]

[deleted by forum admin]

[Jorge]

Answers to questions 1) and 3) of the Brain Strain Quiz in post #1:

R.C. McFarlane, W.A. Lake, Z. Brezinski and R.V. Allen , are all former National Security Advisors to Presidents of the USA; the four, together with two former US Secretaries of Defense, F.C. Carlucci and R.S. McNamara and T.R. Pickering , former American Ambassador to the UN, have one more thing in common: they have all carried out tasks of considerable responsibility in internal and foreign affairs of the US.

Quite an interesting thing they also have in common is that they are all signatories of an open letter supporting both the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration and the Geneva Accord.

Since both documents are being presently discussed in various Threads in this Forum, I think the opinions of the above American personalities might be of help in our debate. Given the importance of the letter, I’m quoting it in full:


To Israelis and Palestinians
A Statement of Support

On the occasion of the signing on 1 December 2003 of the “Geneva Initiative” – a blueprint for peace negotiated by teams of Israelis and Palestinians led by former ministers Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo – we express our strong support both for this and the “People’s Voice” petition initiated by Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseibeh.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken far too great a toll already. Both peoples have paid dearly in lives and livelihood in a war that both are losing. Every passing day undermines the prospects for a peaceful, two-state solution. As long as the conflict endures, it will be a source of instability and violence for the region and the international community as a whole.
We believe that the best way to move forward is to address at the outset, not at the end of an incremental process, all the basic principles of a fair and lasting solution. Postponing the final outcome makes any progress hostage to extremists on both sides. A process must be devised to give practical and political expression to the heartfelt desire of clear majorities on both sides to end this conflict once and for all.

The Geneva and People’s Voice Initiatives both reflect that public opinion, and can help give it new momentum. On the Israeli side, they can help undo the myths taking hold since the collapse of the peace process and onset of violence: that the Palestinian people are not prepared to accept a two state solution and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. On the Palestinian side, they can offer an alternative to the current mindset that sees in violence the only possible means of ending the occupation. They send a powerful signal that an alternative to the current situation exists. They have the potential to transform the domestic political dynamics on both sides.

International support will be crucial to translate these endeavors into a concrete mechanism to bring about a lasting peace. The international players most relevant for this purpose – the U.S., E.U., Russia, UN ‘Quartet’, and the members of the Arab League – should wholeheartedly back these initiatives. They should urge both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to be guided by the outcomes most of their peoples want. And they should make clear their own willingness to lend all the political, economic and military support needed to help implement a comprehensive peace agreement.

We may not agree with every clause and every word of your agreements. But we do agree that focusing on the principles necessary for ending the conflict, on the need for compromise, and on ensuring that the Israeli and Palestinian people will decide their own futures, is a powerful and welcome way forward. The Israeli and Palestinian peoples, by making clear their belief in the Geneva and People’s Voice Initiatives, can help turn the principles embodied in them into reality. You can count on our support in this endeavor.
==============

N.B I think it of additional interest to know that a similar letter was signed by about 60 leading personalities (former Prime Ministers, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defense, etc) from a number of other countries. The list is too long to include it here but it may be seen at:
[URL=http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=2391&l=1[/URL]

[Ahava]

Ayalon was in Holland this week to present this plan. It's not what I'd see as the perfect solution, I don't agree with everything, but for the sake of peace, please, something has to be done, this seems better than the Geneva accord, I believe the Road map is dead, so let's try this! Sacrifices HAVE to be made.
I really hope people from both sides will support it! (though I'm not optimistic about that).

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Jorge
Answers to questions 1) and 3) of the Brain Strain Quiz in post #1:

R.C. McFarlane, W.A. Lake, Z. Brezinski and R.V. Allen , are all former National Security Advisors to Presidents of the USA; the four, together with two former US Secretaries of Defense, F.C. Carlucci and R.S. McNamara and T.R. Pickering , former American Ambassador to the UN, have one more thing in common: they have all carried out tasks of considerable responsibility in internal and foreign affairs of the US.

Quite an interesting thing they also have in common is that they are all signatories of an open letter supporting both the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration and the Geneva Accord.


Of course they signed!! It never costs them anything to sign such a paper.They are on the other side of the ocean. ITS US ISRAELIS who get to live with hostile terroristic Arab population, practicly at our doorstep.

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Ahava
Ayalon was in Holland this week to present this plan. It's not what I'd see as the perfect solution, I don't agree with everything, but for the sake of peace, please, something has to be done, this seems better than the Geneva accord, I believe the Road map is dead, so let's try this! Sacrifices HAVE to be made.
I really hope people from both sides will support it! (though I'm not optimistic about that).

Well, you can be at least a bit optimistic about it. By the last count, 125.OOO israelis had signed supporting the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration. Were it put to a vote, I'm confident that more than 50% of the israeli public would aprove.

The real accomplishment is however on the Palestinian side. By the last count 100.000 signatures have been collected in the WB and GS. The signatories may perhaps be considered as the nucleus of a Palestinian pragmatic peace movement. The greatest merit of the Ayalon -Nusseibeh initiative may turn to be to show that they are there and willing "to stand up and be counted".

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
Well, you can be at least a bit optimistic about it. By the last count, 125.OOO israelis had signed supporting the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration. Were it put to a vote, I'm confident that more than 50% of the israeli public would aprove.
Yessiree! Another 10 years of Oslo War! Bring it on!

The real accomplishment is however on the Palestinian side. By the last count 100.000 signatures have been collected in the WB and GS.
What have they got to lose?

The signatories may perhaps be considered as the nucleus of a Palestinian pragmatic peace movement. The greatest merit of the Ayalon -Nusseibeh initiative may turn to be to show that they are there and willing "to stand up and be counted".
When they start marching down the streets of Ramallah and Jenin, call us.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Jorge
Well, you can be at least a bit optimistic about it. By the last count, 125.OOO israelis had signed supporting the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration. Were it put to a vote, I'm confident that more than 50% of the israeli public would aprove.


The numbers Lefties will never ever reveal:
1. How many Arabs are among the "Israelis" who signed the plan?
2. How many Arabs signed on the plan?
3. How many of the Arabs subscribers, are REAL people and not names on a paper.

Either way, all of these plans are nothing more then shallow propaganda, to promote the personal political intersts of the initiators.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh

3. How many of the Arabs subscribers, are REAL people and not names on a paper.


:D

Hm, seems like OJ and Gilgamesh are not such a big fans..

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Yessiree! Another 10 years of Oslo War! Bring it on!


Who's to say it were the Oslo Accords that were bad and not the way it was (not) carried out, or the people who were supposed to carry them out?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
Who's to say it were the Oslo Accords that were bad and not the way it was (not) carried out, or the people who were supposed to carry them out?
I believe I once PM'd you a link to a long movie about what made Oslo fail.

If so, you're in good company. Israelis seem to have the same short memory span.

Just in case, to refesh your memory:

The Trojan Horse: Exposing the PA's plan to destroy Israel (http://www.zoa.org/video2.htm).

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I believe I once PM'd you a link to a long movie about what made Oslo fail.

If so, you're in good company. Israelis seem to have the same short memory span.

Just in case, to refesh your memory:

The Trojan Horse: Exposing the PA's plan to destroy Israel (http://www.zoa.org/video2.htm).

:)
I don't know what to think. I think both sides made mistakes.

[Jorge]

From Ahava post #10:

Who's to say it were the Oslo Accords that were bad and not the way it was (not) carried out, or the people who were supposed to carry them out?

I would call that a well phrased question.

In fact few will dispute that if the Oslo Accords had been carried out in letter and spirit by both parties we'd be in a far, far better situation than the agonizing one we are both in now.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
:)
I don't know what to think. I think both sides made mistakes.
Isn't it amazing. Israel retreats from agreed on areas, sets up joint patrols, follows through on Oslo, while the other side keeps saying one thing in English and another in Arabic for internal consumption, clearly showing their intentions from the start.

And all you can say is both sides made mistakes?

How "even handed" of you.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
In fact few will dispute that if the Oslo Accords had been carried out in letter and spirit by both parties we'd be in a far, far better situation than the agonizing one we are both in now.
Let's fine tune the question to reflect reality.

What if Oslo had been carried out in the spirit of both party's actual intentions?

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Isn't it amazing. Israel retreats from agreed on areas, sets up joint patrols, follows through on Oslo, while the other side keeps saying one thing in English and another in Arabic for internal consumption, clearly showing their intentions from the start.

And all you can say is both sides made mistakes?

How "even handed" of you.

Well Uri Avneri (ssh! keep reading!) says Israel refused to carry out obligations with the excuse that the Palestinians "violated the agreements, too". The basis was not good, because Israel had the military power, economic and technological. No equality between the parties, so Israel could dictate and do or not do what it wanted, whereas the palestinians had little choice. It was simple for Israel to say "they didn't do that" to use as an excuse to stop with carrying out all of the accords.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Let's fine tune the question to reflect reality.

What if Oslo had been carried out in the spirit of both party's actual intentions?

Then there'd be peace now and everyone would be happy. :)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
Well Uri Avneri (ssh! keep reading!)
I kept reading but I had to stop and puke first.

says Israel refused to carry out obligations with the excuse that the Palestinians "violated the agreements, too".
Wow! It's an "excuse" not to carry out obligations when the other side violates an agreement.

Thank you for clearing that up and thank you for finding no one better to do it.

The basis was not good, because Israel had the military power, economic and technological. No equality between the parties, so Israel could dictate and do or not do what it wanted, whereas the palestinians had little choice.
And yet Israel performed its obligations and the PA didn't - just the opposite of what you just said.

And, as you also said, this stopped when the PA's shennanigans began, which is absolutely Israel's right under a mutual agreement.

It was simple for Israel to say "they didn't do that" to use as an excuse to stop with carrying out all of the accords.
Why use the word "simple", when "legitimate" is accurate?

Would you care to back up your vague recollection of history with a chronological list of events that lead to Israel's cessation of their side of the agreement?

And your ignoring the film content's main message is astrounding. It is clear by their own words and deeds that Arabfat & Co. never intended to live at peace with Israel.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
Then there'd be peace now and everyone would be happy. :)
Wrong. If not, just what do you think the PA's intentions were?

[Mediocrates]

Few dispute that the old Soviet constitution is the most freedom granting document in the history of mankind either. So? We could talk all day about the Big Rock Candy Mountain.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I kept reading but I had to stop and puke first.

That's ok. :)


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Wow! It's an "excuse" not to carry out obligations when the other side violates an agreement.

Thank you for clearing that up and thank you for finding no one better to do it.

I think it's hard to say who really violated the agreement, first. Things didn't happen as they were supposed to happen, that's the main point.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
And yet Israel performed its obligations and the PA didn't - just the opposite of what you just said.

I didn't say the opposite, I'm just saying it was not just the PA violating the agreements. Israeli settlements were established which was against the agreements. More and more people settling on the land where a Palestinian was supposed to come into being.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Would you care to back up your vague recollection of history with a chronological list of events that lead to Israel's cessation of their side of the agreement?

Always. Well, the versions of how the process went, vary from "Israel alone is to blame" to "the Palestinians alone are to blame". I guess it's somewhere in between.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

And your ignoring the film content's main message is astrounding. It is clear by their own words and deeds that Arabfat & Co. never intended to live at peace with Israel.

Arafat doesn't want peace, I believe that. But there are others who can make efforts, too.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Wrong. If not, just what do you think the PA's intentions were?

They'd hopefully give up on their "all of Palestine" dream.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
They'd hopefully give up on their "all of Palestine" dream.
I love your abuse of the word "hopefully".

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
I think it's hard to say who really violated the agreement, first. Things didn't happen as they were supposed to happen, that's the main point.
Once again, how vague can you get.

Wake me up when you have some hard facts in hand.


I didn't say the opposite, I'm just saying it was not just the PA violating the agreements. Israeli settlements were established which was against the agreements. More and more people settling on the land where a Palestinian was supposed to come into being.
Please point out to me the text in the Oslo Accords you are referring to.

Always. Well, the versions of how the process went, vary from "Israel alone is to blame" to "the Palestinians alone are to blame". I guess it's somewhere in between.
Nothing like conjecture. I don't know who to blame so I'll blame both of you. And since you, Israel are the bigger boy, you're going to get punished more.

Arafat doesn't want peace, I believe that. But there are others who can make efforts, too.
Sorry, I can't hear you. There's a war on outside of my window.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Once again, how vague can you get.

Wake me up when you have some hard facts in hand.

"...Similarly, Israel has violated the agreement. It, however, has operated at the strategic level. And, like the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli Government has used military methods to secure its aims. For example, the Israeli Government continued to consider Palestinian territories as ground under occupation and has used this as an excuse to shut down these territories from time to time simply in order to put pressure on Mr Arafat. Furthermore, after the agreement, Israel did not evacuate the Palestinian territories - as agreed - nor did it stop the construction of new settler sites; both of which only served to convince Palestinians that the agreement amounted to very little in actual terms."

Rethinking the Oslo Agreement (http://www.civilitasresearch.com/resources/view_article.cfm?article_id=2)


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Please point out to me the text in the Oslo Accords you are referring to.

The intent of withdrawal from the territories was clear. I don't know if it was actually forbidden to build new settlements, but not helpful, either way.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Nothing like conjecture. I don't know who to blame so I'll blame both of you. And since you, Israel are the bigger boy, you're going to get punished more.

I didn't say Israel is more to blame or deserves more punishment. I'm pro-Israel, which means I support Israel!


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Sorry, I can't hear you. There's a war on outside of my window.

There are people making efforts for peace. Like Sari Nusseibeh. :)
Sharon, on the other hand..nope.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
...Similarly, Israel has violated the agreement.
Well, now that's really vague!

It, however, has operated at the strategic level. And, like the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli Government has used military methods to secure its aims. For example, the Israeli Government continued to consider Palestinian territories as ground under occupation and has used this as an excuse to shut down these territories from time to time simply in order to put pressure on Mr Arafat.
Mr. Arafat decalred war on Israel. So what else is new?

Furthermore, after the agreement, Israel did not evacuate the Palestinian territories - as agreed
Here is the Declaration of Principles (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/dop.html). Where does it say this?

- nor did it stop the construction of new settler sites;
I challenge you again to show me where it states in the Oslo agreements that Israel must stop settlement construction.

You claim to support Israel but you spread myths (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#j) against her.

both of which only served to convince Palestinians that the agreement amounted to very little in actual terms."
What major parts of the agreement, other than taking over areas that Israel retreated from, did the Palestinians comply with? Simple question.

Rethinking the Oslo Agreement (http://www.civilitasresearch.com/resources/view_article.cfm?article_id=2)
I suggest rethinking what unreliable sources you're quoting from.

The intent of withdrawal from the territories was clear.
Israel almost immediately withdrew from all areas designated as Area A and B (except for joint patrols in Area B). This gave the PA full control over the majority of their population.

What began happening right after Israel complied with this elementary clause of the "land for peace" formula?

I don't know if it was actually forbidden to build new settlements, but not helpful, either way.
Settlements are not the problem. And the agreements, which Arafat signed on (with no intention to ever comply, as I've already directed you to the Trojan Horse film), never forbade Israel from constructing existing or even new communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

I didn't say Israel is more to blame or deserves more punishment. I'm pro-Israel, which means I support Israel!
On the contrary. Israel is hardly to blame. Forgetting and disregarding the history of events from only 10 years ago is as detrimental to Israel's support as forgetting what exactly happened in 67', 48' and 29'.

There are people making efforts for peace. Like Sari Nusseibeh. :)
Sharon, on the other hand..nope.
To me Nusseibeh is just another Trojan Horse. Stupid Jews. Hit me again.

I agree with you on Sharon.

I'll stick with Moshe Feiglin.

[Oh Jerusalem]

And let's remember Nusseibeh's past (http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El487&enVersion=0&enZone=Views), for the record here.

Stupid Jews.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Well, now that's really vague!

When you take it out of the context, that is!


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Mr. Arafat decalred war on Israel. So what else is new?

Israel should have continued carrying out their obligations. Netanyahu aswell. you mean what Arafat said in Arabic to his crowd?


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Here is the Declaration of Principles (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/dop.html). Where does it say this?

I challenge you again to show me where it states in the Oslo agreements that Israel must stop settlement construction.

I demand a lawyer! :p
Well, the Declaration of Principles is vague in that it keeps referring to "issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations". Doesn't make me any wiser. It does speak about withdrawal, but do they solely mean Israeli forces? How about negotiations over the "remaining issues" such as Jerusalem and the settlements?



Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

You claim to support Israel but you spread myths (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf22.html#j) against her.

{shrug} I don't support growth of settlements. Everybody knows they're not helpful for the peace process and I'd call them an obstacle to peace. It's disputed whether they're illegal, I don't know, but the most obvious and logical conclusion is that they are, IMO.
Furthermore, I sure do support Israel. Very much so.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

What major parts of the agreement, other than taking over areas that Israel retreated from, did the Palestinians comply with? Simple question.

Not that simple. Dunno. You?


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

I suggest rethinking what unreliable sources you're quoting from.

It's hard to find reliable sources when it comes to the Israel conflict. Everyone has its own agenda.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

On the contrary. Israel is hardly to blame. Forgetting and disregarding the history of events from only 10 years ago is as detrimental to Israel's support as forgetting what exactly happened in 67', 48' and 29'.

Sorry, must be the short memory span.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

To me Nusseibeh is just another Trojan Horse. Stupid Jews. Hit me again.

To me, Nusseibeh is one of the few real well-intentioned Palestinians who really want to achieve peace.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

I agree with you on Sharon.

I'll stick with Moshe Feiglin.

Moshe Feiglin?

"There is a time for war and a time for peace. Now is the time for war.

Not a war in order to bring them to the negotiations table. Nor a war to bring peace. Nor a war because there is no alternative. Not even a war to halt the terrorist attacks.

But a war of justice.

A war of morality. A war for the truth.

A war - because everything else means coming to terms with badness, evil and cruelty. A war - because we are the good ones. A war - because we are the responsible ones.

A holy war, now. "

Yuk! He sounds just like a fundamentalist muslim calling for jihad!

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
And let's remember Nusseibeh's past (http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article%5El487&enVersion=0&enZone=Views), for the record here.

I didn't know that. Then again, isn't every Palestinian leader an ex-terrorist and many Israeli politicians ex-warriors, and not always such nice ones?


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Stupid Jews.

Who? The Leftists?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
Yuk! He sounds just like a fundamentalist muslim calling for jihad!
No. He sounds like a Jew under attack by those very same Jihadis.

Too tired to answer in full. Eyes wide shut.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
I didn't know that.
It showed.

Then again, isn't every Palestinian leader an ex-terrorist
They have all proven to not be entitled to the "ex" word.


and many Israeli politicians ex-warriors, and not always such nice ones?
War isn't nice but warriors are not the same thing as terrorists. And throughout history, it's usually good warriors that dictate terms for peace under conditions like these.

Who? The Leftists?
Them and all of middle Israel who, like you, skim over the facts, recent history, the players and what they've just been slapped silly with over the last 10 years several times over.

That's it. Must collapse.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

They have all proven to not be entitled to the "ex" word.

Nusseibeh too?


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

War isn't nice but warriors are not the same thing as terrorists. And throughout history, it's usually good warriors that dictate terms for peace under conditions like these.

I'd never defend terrorists but now I do have to say that those palestinians cannot BE warriors. How can they be warriors? They have no army. They're called terrorists whatever they do, and Israelis are called warriors for whatever crime.


Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Them and all of middle Israel who, like you, skim over the facts, recent history, the players and what they've just been slapped silly with over the last 10 years several times over.


I know a lot more than let's say a year ago, but there really is an awful lot to it and I'm absolutely not at a point where I can judge on every aspect and I know I may be wrong on some points, I may have some too positive images of Israel at points. If I'm biased, then I'm pro-Israel biased. But I try not to be.

[Binyamin]

Given our experience with "ex-"terrorists, we need PROOF that someone changed before we can talk to them. You say that we cannot show that Nusseiba is still a terrorist. He is a terrorist until he can prove that he isn't. So far, he has not given us any reason to think that he changed. (He talks nicely maybe, but that means nothing. As above)

If both sides would have fulfilled their obligations under Oslo, we may have had peace by now. (I say "may," because so much was left for further discussion that absolutely nothing was guaranteed.)
Some of the main problems with Oslo were that
1) There was no reason to think that Arafat would keep his commitments.
2) There was no recipricocity to ensure that Israel would not have to everything regardless of what the Palestinians did.
3) There were no penalties on the Palstinians for not keeping their side. (Israel was not even allowed to stop making concessions or take back what they gave.)

The problem is not just that the arabs did not do what they were supposed to, but that there was never any reason to think that they would.

Keep in mind that the Palestinians did not keep even one of their commitments.

[Jorge]

From Binyamin post #33:

Given our experience with "ex-"terrorists, we need PROOF that someone changed before we can talk to them. You say that we cannot show that Nusseiba is still a terrorist. He is a terrorist until he can prove that he isn't. So far, he has not given us any reason to think that he changed. (He talks nicely maybe, but that means nothing. As above)

Binyamin, aren’t we carrying our paranoia a bit too far? If Prof. Nusseibeh were a terrorist why on earth would he act like he does? The fellow associates himself with a notorious Israeli ex-Intelligence Officer, makes a joint Declaration of Principles which, you cannot but agree with me, is the most dovish statement a Palestinian figure ever wrote, goes into towns, villages and refugee camps trying to convince people to sign, puts himself and his close family in mortal danger and you think he’s acting like that because he’s a terrorist?

So far, you say, “ he has not given us any reason to think that he changed”. What more can you ask than what he’s doing? Prof. Nusseibeh has enough means and prestige to spend the rest of his life in a closed academic ivory tower; instead of that he risks his head every Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday, preaching peace in the middle of a bloody confrontation. Why? Because he’s a terrorist in disguise? See what I mean by “ acute paranoia”?

What upsets me even more is that I can picture at this very moment, in the other side of the fence, in front of his PC, your Palestinian counterpart writing a message to the IntifadaForum. He’s writing something like this:--- Ami Ayalon? He was a high ranking officer in the Israeli Secret Service? We need PROOF that he’s sincere. Otherwise we must assume that the Declaration of Principles is nothing more than a new Mossad Plot !!.

[Mediocrates]

Maybe Dahlan really is a Mossad plot as he merrily goes around assassinating rivals in Gaza. The Palestinians really need no assistance in being well....Byzantine, do they?

[Binyamin]

I'm not familiar with Nusseibah's declaration of principals, but regardless of the content, we cannot rely on what he says.
He wants to be accepted as a legitimate arab leader, and he knows that Israeli's go for his peace talk. Why should we think he will keep his word any more than the other "ex-"terrorists did? He talks more liberally than Arafat did in his time, because he knows that Israel won't buy the exact same garbage a second time.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Binyamin
He wants to be accepted as a legitimate arab leader
When he gets democratically elected into a non-terrorist-associated ruling Palestinian party, in a poltical position of authority, call us.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Binyamin
I'm not familiar with Nusseibah's declaration of principals, but regardless of the content, we cannot rely on what he says.
He wants to be accepted as a legitimate arab leader, and he knows that Israeli's go for his peace talk. Why should we think he will keep his word any more than the other "ex-"terrorists did? He talks more liberally than Arafat did in his time, because he knows that Israel won't buy the exact same garbage a second time.

I don't know Binyamin, I agree with Jorge that you're being too paranoid. Arafat is not accepted because he's still a terrorist, fair enough, Abu Mazen and Abu Alla are not accepted because they're puppets from Arafat, fine too, but if you accept nobody and choose to distrust everybody, that's the end of the road (to peace).

[Binyamin]

... but if you accept nobody and choose to distrust everybody, that's the end of the road (to peace).

If there is no one to make peace with, then we will have to manage without peace, as unpleasant as that is.
We can not pretend we have someone to talk to just because we so desperately want to have peace talks.

If we believe that Nusseiba, or any other Palestinian, is serious about peace then we can talk to them, but we should not talk to someone just because there is no one better to talk to.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Ahava
but if you accept nobody and choose to distrust everybody, that's the end of the road (to peace).
I never knew there was a "road to peace", always thought its an expression or a heart wish.

Face it, we distrust many people, Arabs, Euros and some Jews as well. Are we paranoid? I think we are practicle and not dreamy.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Ahava
I don't know Binyamin, I agree with Jorge that you're being too paranoid. Arafat is not accepted because he's still a terrorist, fair enough, Abu Mazen and Abu Alla are not accepted because they're puppets from Arafat, fine too, but if you accept nobody and choose to distrust everybody, that's the end of the road (to peace).



I refuse to believe that in a population of a few million people amongst whom is the greatest proportion of college educated people in the Arab world you can't find a bare minimum of de-nazified Palestinians capable of running a small country and keeping the lights on and the garbage trucks running. Anyone who says otherwise is just being a Big Bwana Patronizing Racist.

Get rid of the whole lot of them, round up the top crop and put them on trial for warcrimes. Decapitate them, reconstitute the PA with new people, give them a great big push. some money and send them on their way. Not all countries are successful not all countries survive. But to demand paradise before declaring success is simply idiotic twaddle.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I refuse to believe that in a population of a few million people amongst whom is the greatest proportion of college educated people in the Arab world you can't find a bare minimum of de-nazified Palestinians capable of running a small country and keeping the lights on and the garbage trucks running. Anyone who says otherwise is just being a Big Bwana Patronizing Racist.


Indeed. That's why I find it 'highly offensive' of Binyamin to declare otherwise.

[Mediocrates]

When are you people going to understand that peace is not a goal? It's a goddamn side-effect. Throw the PA in a cage, go after Hamas including every single one of its leaders and all of their cronies personally. Go after Tanzim , PFLP, Force 17, al Aqsa at a very personal and brutal level. Go after anyone associated with them or related to them. In the byzantine world of Arab clans that's got to include a pretty wide sweep. Decapitate the PA and Fatah, disarm the PA 'police' and push de-nazified Palestinians into all of those roles including the so called national parliament. Dissolve the PLO executive committee and kill or imprison anyone on it who refuses to de-nazify. Put a price on Nasrallah's and Yassin's heads. Dissassemble PA control over Palestinian television press, 'information'. Dissassemble the PA monopolies on cell phones, gasoline, cement etc. Cut off 100% of the Israeli money transferred to the PA under Oslo and give that money to help poor Israelis. Last and not least offer provisional Israeli citizenship to Palestinians who first serve the normal national military service. If that goes well and completes on schedule then they are granted citizenship. If not they are given a bus ticket to West Camel-stan and sent packing.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
When are you people going to understand that peace is not a goal? It's a --- side-effect.

Oh. All the things you mentioned after this statement, appear to me to be steps that will eventually lead to peace, that seems to be the goal. What else could be the goal? No more dead? Of course, but that's the result of peace. Safety, no violence, calm, happiness, no more worrying about your child taking the bus to school: all blessings that are a result, the effects of peace. As well as economical growth and decrease of poverty, unemployment, racism, etc.

[Mediocrates]

Peace comes from a stable society not the other way around. There are poor people everywhere - even in Holland and Canada and Brazil. But peace exists because those stable safe societies with methods, some successful some not for dealing with those societal problems. If those countries were run by the army or the mafia or the PLO or the Klingons they would look much like Ramallah. No first you need to create a stable place for peace to land. Then it will land. No one can impose peace on an enemy who is not absolutely crushed into the dirt.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Peace comes from a stable society not the other way around. There are poor people everywhere - even in Holland and Canada and Brazil. But peace exists because those stable safe societies with methods, some successful some not for dealing with those societal problems. If those countries were run by the army or the mafia or the PLO or the Klingons they would look much like Ramallah. No first you need to create a stable place for peace to land. Then it will land. No one can impose peace on an enemy who is not absolutely crushed into the dirt.

You're right. Just like there are some conditions for being able to be a democracy. But peace remains the goal, right? You're just pointing out that in order to get peace you need a stable society on pallie side first. But the reason you want them to have a stable society, is to achieve peace, not?

[Mediocrates]

No. I mean that. Peace is not the goal. At best we will see peace with abuses or peace with violence or peace with periodic eruptions. Peace in and of itself is like seeking out a zero crime rate. And even with the mindbending level of violence the Israelis have had to endure, Arafat's hope of a collapsed Israeli society is laughable. It simply will not happen.

More people give grudging support of the IDF and all of its actions and of the fence and of Sharon than do not. The Israeli economy has problems as part of a global recession, it has problems with foreign workers and problems with a stratified society. It has problems with frictions among Jews, between Jews and Arabs and between Sephardi and Azkenazic. It problems of race and class too. It even has political problems driven by the anarchic political system they prefer. But in the big scheme of things is it all that bad? No. Hell, look over in Iran where the supposedly monolithic mullahfukaz have tossed out an ENTIRE ELECTION. Look in Saudi Arabia where only 3 million Saudis out of a total residency of 22 million BOTHER TO WORK. Look at Lebanon which ceased to exist as a country. Look at Syria. Who? Syria? The most broken bankrupt irrelevant country outside of Africa.

So the point really is, to me, that peace is not the goal. Peace or something quite like it will flow out the conditions you set when you establish a rational society and a rational political system for the Palestinians. When then that happens then we won't have to talk about 'when peace comes' anymore. It will be in view. That's why I think that focussing on 'peace' or more properly 'an acceptable level of atrocities during an undeclared partial cease fire' misses the mark. Once everyone understands that the problem is politics, not war then everyone will be much farther along.

[Jorge]

Quotes from Binyamin post #36:

I'm not familiar with Nusseibah's declaration of principals, but regardless of the content, we cannot rely on what he says.

Binyamin, you should read it; it’s a very interesting piece. You can access the English version at:
The People's Voice (http://www.mifkad.org.il/eng/PrinciplesAgreement.asp)

I’m confident that after reading it you might even sign up (you can do this on-line with the link provided).

For instance the paragraph on refugees, Quote:

4.Right of Return : Recognizing the suffering and the plight of Palestinian refugees
the international community, Israel and the Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international fund to compensate them.
Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel. The international community will offer to compensate towards bettering the lot of those refuges willing to remain in their present country of residence, or wish to immigrate to third-party countries.

I’d say it’s pretty reasonable, wouldn’t you say so?

[Mediocrates]

Well in a rational world it world it would seem reasonable but we don't have that.

A "number" has been floated many times before and the PA has pulled absurd numbers out of its ass. I've seen 500 Billion dollars floated as a 'reasonable' number.

It needs to be matched by a recompense fund that makes whole the million or so Jews pogrommed out of their homes in the Arab world during the same time. Dollar for Dollar, head for head. And no more. This means that the Palestinians don't get to count every person on earth who can spell "Palestinian" either.

If the Arab countries can be united when attempting to exterminate Jews then they should be united in compensating Jews for what they have stolen from them.

[Binyamin]

Thanks for the link, Jorge. I will read it.

A few genral questions on #4.
"Jews will return only to Israel."
Who are these Jews, where do they live, and why wasn't their suffering mentioned in the first paragraph? (This is the first time I heard about Jewish refugees from Israel.)

In the first paragraph the Palestinians promise money for the refugees who will return to Palestine. We all know that they don't have any money.

This sentence is hard to read. "The international community will offer to compensate towards bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present country of residence, or wish(ing) to immigrate to third-party countries. "

This sentence does not refer to Israel and Palestine, who I would assume are only helping the refugees who do not meet these criteria. That means that Israel and Palestine will only help refugees returning to their countries, and not those who are already there. All of the refugees who are currently in the WG and GS will only be helped by international donors.

"compensate towards bettering"
Poor usage. Should be "contribute toward the bettering"

[Binyamin]

I read it.

Absolutely nothing about ending terrorism, incitement, or establishing a democracy.

[Jorge]

Re., the refugee question and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document:

From Mediocrates # 49:
A "number" has been floated many times before and the PA has pulled absurd numbers out of its ass. I've seen 500 Billion dollars floated as a 'reasonable' number .

I don’t think a “number” for the total cost is the way to go about it. Rather an International Fund may be set up, the extent of solutions depending on the amount in the Fund. The PA has no money to contribute to it and, for reasons of good management, should leave the administration of the Funds to the donor countries.

Israel also has no money to contribute but some “creative thinking” may help; for instance: if Israel were to withdraw unilaterally from the Gaza Strip it could declare(unilaterally) that the housing, installations and infrastructure of the evacuated settlements are to be used for re-settling refugees now living in the GS. In this way the Fund may be initiated with an Israeli contribution of say, (rough estimate) half a billion dollars. Not bad, considering that the alternative is blowing everything up.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
For instance the paragraph on refugees, Quote:

4.Right of Return : Recognizing the suffering and the plight of Palestinian refugees
the international community, Israel and the Palestinian State will initiate and contribute to an international fund to compensate them.
Palestinian refugees will return only to the State of Palestine; Jews will return only to the State of Israel. The international community will offer to compensate towards bettering the lot of those refuges willing to remain in their present country of residence, or wish to immigrate to third-party countries.

I’d say it’s pretty reasonable, wouldn’t you say so?
Stupid Jews!

We have to pay the Arabs for the misery they caused themselves?

We have to pay for their Generals telling Arabs to leave Israeli towns so that we Jews could be annihilated?

We Jews have to pay for Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the UN intentionally keeping these people in refugee camps till this day?

We Jews have to give these Arabs ready built houses, while they continue on the political, public and street level to call for our destruction?

Here's what I suggest: Place all of the Pals in Gaza and let their own brothers take care of them.

As a result, Israel will forgive the compensation owed to it for all the wars the Arabs started, for all the terrorist attrocities that they've perpetuated over the last 35 or so years around the world to Jews and non-Jews, for the deaths and lost property and injuries that were inflicted on us. I'm even willing to be generous and forget about compensation to the nearly one million Jews in Arab countries who were forced or "convinced" to leave everything they owned behind in order to esxape persecution as Jews.

Up yours, Nusseibah And even more so Ayalon!

[Jorge]

Quotes from Binyamin Post #50:

"Jews will return only to Israel."
Who are these Jews, where do they live, and why wasn't their suffering mentioned in the first paragraph? (This is the first time I heard about Jewish refugees from Israel.)

Refers to Jews wanting to immigrate, not necessarily refugees. Also Palestinians that have emigrated in the past may decide to come back (sort of Law of Return for them). Many analysts think that only a small proportion of refugees living in other countries may decide to come back to a Palestinian State.

This sentence is hard to read. "The international community will offer to compensate towards bettering the lot of those refugees willing to remain in their present country of residence, or wish(ing) to immigrate to third-party countries. "

"compensate towards bettering"
Poor usage. Should be "contribute toward the bettering"

I agree; it is clearer in your English; I’ll pass it on.
Suppose a number of the refugees now living in Jordan decide to stay there; then the international community may offer to compensate (the Jordan gov.) for investments needed to improve their lot. In the case of some of them wanting to go to say, Australia, the Fund may compensate the Australian gov. for re-settlement costs. This is important because, otherwise, countries may not be very willing to absorb refugees.

This sentence does not refer to Israel and Palestine, who I would assume are only helping the refugees who do not meet these criteria. That means that Israel and Palestine will only help refugees returning to their countries, and not those who are already there. All of the refugees who are currently in the WG and GS will only be helped by international donors.

As I said earlier, neither Israel nor Palestine have actually any money to spare; you cannot put this in a Declaration of Principles. (unless you write that they are “symbolically” committed to help). Nevertheless, the important point is that, for the first time, we have an statement signed by quite a number of Palestinians admitting that the return of refugees to Israel proper is out of question. It is this clause that makes the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration a landmark in the road to an agreement.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
the important point is that, for the first time, we have an statement signed by quite a number of Palestinians admitting that the return of refugees to Israel proper is out of question. It is this clause that makes the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration a landmark in the road to an agreement.
Remember the Trojan Horse (http://www.zoa.org/video2.htm).

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Jorge
Re., the refugee question and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh document:

From Mediocrates # 49:
A "number" has been floated many times before and the PA has pulled absurd numbers out of its ass. I've seen 500 Billion dollars floated as a 'reasonable' number .

I don’t think a “number” for the total cost is the way to go about it. Rather an International Fund may be set up, the extent of solutions depending on the amount in the Fund. The PA has no money to contribute to it and, for reasons of good management, should leave the administration of the Funds to the donor countries.

Israel also has no money to contribute but some “creative thinking” may help; for instance: if Israel were to withdraw unilaterally from the Gaza Strip it could declare(unilaterally) that the housing, installations and infrastructure of the evacuated settlements are to be used for re-settling refugees now living in the GS. In this way the Fund may be initiated with an Israeli contribution of say, (rough estimate) half a billion dollars. Not bad, considering that the alternative is blowing everything up.


Do you want to pick the lucky 10,000 who get to win the lottery? Or should we simply build attactive mini-palaces for PA officials?

But please tell me about the equity of abandoning the legacy of 800,000 Jews pogrommed out of the Mizhrai and the Magrib.

[Jorge]

From Mediocrates post #56:

But please tell me about the equity of abandoning the legacy of 800,000 Jews pogrommed out of the Mizhrai and the Magrib. __________________

I don't quite see the connection between the point you raise and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration. Palestinians are obviously not responsible for events that occurred in other Arab States so, there is no reason to mention the point you raise in this document.

In the case of Jews that were forced to abandon Arab States the course to follow is to demand compensation from each country according to the value of the assets left behind. This could be in the form of a class action by the former citizens or by Israel as their representative. If an State refuses to compensate, the case will have to be taken to an International Court. This is risky, because if the said Court were to rule that compensations should be paid, it will create a legal precedent. Using this precedent, Arabs declaring that were forced to leave Israel could sue, succesfully, in the same Court.

[Binyamin]

According to the Ayalon Nusseibah plan the Palestinians will give up the "right" of return, and declare an end to the conflict. In return they will get all of the territories.

A declaration that the conflict is over is meaningless to Israel. Israel needs a complete,clearly defined, and completely guaranteed peace, and they need a democratic Palestinian government.

There is no basis for a Palestinian right of return, and they should not be paid to much for dropping that demand.

BTW, no Palestinians were forced, or even encouraged (by Israel), to leave Israel.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Binyamin

BTW, no Palestinians were forced, or even encouraged (by Israel), to leave Israel.

Interview with Benny Morris:


What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?

"Yes."

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer."

"Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

He adds:

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html

[Binyamin]

The article, and Morris, show a large degree of bias.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Binyamin
The article, and Morris, show a large degree of bias.

Could you substantiate that please? :)

[Binyamin]

The Palestinian refugee lie (http://www.masada2000.org/RefugeeScam.html)

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Binyamin
The Palestinian refugee lie (http://www.masada2000.org/RefugeeScam.html)

I can give you tons of links now that claim the opposite, I won't do that. Firstly,


The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state.

"The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."
(from your link)

I fully agree with this. This doesn't say, however, that there were no massacres and expulsions. Yes, the invasion of 1948 was a crime and yes, the responsibility lies on the Arab states.
However,


many Arab villagers who believed the false rumors of a massacre at the village of Deir Yassin "panicked and fled ignominiously before they were threatened by the progress of the war."

It is true that many people panicked and fled as a result of the massacre at Deir Yassin, these rumours were spread by both JEWS and Arabs. But although exaggerated, there WAS a massacre.
Benny Morris investigated and found other cases of massacre, too. You can simply claim it's not true, but it won't do. He didn't just make this up.

[Ahava]

Let this be clear: I am AGAINST the "right of return", because

-there is no right of return
-it would destroy Israel as a Jewish state
-there'll come a civil war
-it makes no sense at all, when the Palestinians get their own state, why would they want to move to a state towards which they have been hostile their entire lives?
-by allowing the refugees to return, you're creating a new refugee problem (assuming the Pallies will make use of the "right"): Jews will have to leave their houses and let the Pallies in
-never ever has any refugee problem been resolved this way
-the creating of the refugee problem is primarily those of the Arab states, so they should be involved by solving it

and probably some more reasons I'm forgetting now.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Jorge
From Mediocrates post #56:

I don't quite see the connection between the point you raise and the Ayalon-Nusseibeh Declaration. Palestinians are obviously not responsible for events that occurred in other Arab States so, there is no reason to mention the point you raise in this document.

This is linkage. It's a poltical solution. If Palestinians want some equitable solution then it works both ways. Jews didn't ask to be thrown out of their homes.


In the case of Jews that were forced to abandon Arab States the course to follow is to demand compensation from each country according to the value of the assets left behind. This could be in the form of a class action by the former citizens or by Israel as their representative.

That isn't even close to realistic. Arab states would never even pretend to care.



If an State refuses to compensate, the case will have to be taken to an International Court. This is risky, because if the said Court were to rule that compensations should be paid, it will create a legal precedent. Using this precedent, Arabs declaring that were forced to leave Israel could sue, succesfully, in the same Court.

Here's how it would work. The Israelis would go to the court and get thrown out. The Arabs would show up in court and get a judgment of 400 billion quadzillion dollars payable in money or the totality of all the land of Israel. Everyone has a good laugh and goes home.

[Binyamin]

The article, and Morris, show a large degree of bias.
Could you substantiate that please?

Some quotes from the article.

to create a critical vision of Zionism--its expulsion and continuing oppression of the Palestinians, its pressing need for moral and political atonement.

the Zionist murders, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing that drove 600,000-750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948,
(Note the number that they give.)

the fascist Vladimir Jabotinsky

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110),
(The story of the Dier Yassin massacre is comppletely distorted.)

[Jorge]

I think it was a mistake to bring Benny Morris into this discussion. He is an historian and historians should better be left out of our debates; they only complicate things. This may sound a bit strong but look at it this way: this is a place where anyone can talk about the first thing that comes into his mind, no need for solid evidence and the like; historians just spoil the fun with their insistence in original sources, corroboration, coherence and other tools of the trade. Second only to professional philosophers they are the most exasperating fellows one is likely to meet.

I know all this from bitter experience; one of my uncles is an historian; a truly irritating person. Just as an example: a few months ago in a family party for Lag Ba’Omer, around a bonfire and all that, he says --Did you know that there’s no documentary evidence about Bar Kochva? For all we know, the chap never existed-- See what I mean? All those generations of kids playing with bows and arrows around the bonfires pretending they are Bar Kochva, a large pillar of our national ethos, and he comes around doubting his existence? Party spoilers, that’s what historians are.

The same with this Professor Morris. For years we have been telling our children our story of how this nasty refugee problem started; of Arab processions fleeing the country for no reason whatsoever, while Jews lined the roads, begging, imploring them to stay. Along comes this fellow Morris, starts digging old archives, letters, documents, saying that it ain’t necessarily so , that may be we got it wrong and talking about forced expulsion, ethnic cleansing and other gruesome things. Who ever asked him to do that? Why can’t he do research on the Hittites or Mesopotamia instead of airing our dirty linen in front of everyone?

What’s most irritating is that you cannot even argue with him on the level; the minute you start, he’ll ask for original documents and corroborative evidence and all that. Who’s got them? Only historians know where those documents are; we are just ordinary fellows wanting to have a nice heated discussion about this and that.

It was much easier with historians of old. Some posts ago, Binyamin said that Iosephus Flavius account of the zealot’s deeds was grossly distorted. It may very well be. There was no one else writing about what happened and actual documents, if there was any, are not to be found. Iosephus, as an historian, is fair game, so to speak. Not so with the new historians, they claim to draw conclusions based only on firm evidence. And it will only get worse in the future; think of what historians might say about our times when they’ll start digging not only written documents but all this profusion of newsreels and cassettes and videotapes that are left lying around.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Jorge
I think it was a mistake to bring Benny Morris into this discussion. He is an historian and historians should better be left out of our debates; they only complicate things. This may sound a bit strong but look at it this way: this is a place where anyone can talk about the first thing that comes into his mind, no need for solid evidence and the like; historians just spoil the fun with their insistence in original sources, corroboration, coherence and other tools of the trade. Second only to professional philosophers they are the most exasperating fellows one is likely to meet.

I know all this from bitter experience; one of my uncles is an historian; a truly irritating person. Just as an example: a few months ago in a family party for Lag Ba’Omer, around a bonfire and all that, he says --Did you know that there’s no documentary evidence about Bar Kochva? For all we know, the chap never existed-- See what I mean? All those generations of kids playing with bows and arrows around the bonfires pretending they are Bar Kochva, a large pillar of our national ethos, and he comes around doubting his existence? Party spoilers, that’s what historians are.

The same with this Professor Morris. For years we have been telling our children our story of how this nasty refugee problem started; of Arab processions fleeing the country for no reason whatsoever, while Jews lined the roads, begging, imploring them to stay. Along comes this fellow Morris, starts digging old archives, letters, documents, saying that it ain’t necessarily so , that may be we got it wrong and talking about forced expulsion, ethnic cleansing and other gruesome things. Who ever asked him to do that? Why can’t he do research on the Hittites or Mesopotamia instead of airing our dirty linen in front of everyone?

What’s most irritating is that you cannot even argue with him on the level; the minute you start, he’ll ask for original documents and corroborative evidence and all that. Who’s got them? Only historians know where those documents are; we are just ordinary fellows wanting to have a nice heated discussion about this and that.

It was much easier with historians of old. Some posts ago, Binyamin said that Iosephus Flavius account of the zealot’s deeds was grossly distorted. It may very well be. There was no one else writing about what happened and actual documents, if there was any, are not to be found. Iosephus, as an historian, is fair game, so to speak. Not so with the new historians, they claim to draw conclusions based only on firm evidence. And it will only get worse in the future; think of what historians might say about our times when they’ll start digging not only written documents but all this profusion of newsreels and cassettes and videotapes that are left lying around.


Did you ask your uncle what he thought about the recent archaeological discoveries in Israel where they found artifacts, including coins with Bar Kochba's name?

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=232322&contrassID=1

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=232393&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


Can someone tell me if these links works now?

Also, some of the documents discovered at Qumran contained writings both addressing and addressed by Bar Kochba. There was another article from Haaretz a that addressed those findings, but I can't find it on the web now. There is so much chazeri on the web and the academic sites are not always easy to navigate through. Here is what I found on the Bar Kochba letters with a quick search:

http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/bk07.html

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Binyamin


(The story of the Dier Yassin massacre is comppletely distorted.)


That's true. It was a strategic staging ground for the Arabs in the battle for Jerusalem. Anyone who reads about Deir Yassin should also read about the brutal battle in Jerusalem and what the Jewish residents their went through during the war.

"[Deir Yassin] was an integral, inseparable episode in the battle for Jerusalem... [Arab forces] were attempting to cut the only highway linking Jerusalem with Tel Aviv and the outside world. It had cut the pipeline upon which the defenders depended for water. Palestinian Arab contingents, stiffened by men of the regular Iraqi army, had seized vantage points overlooking the Jerusalem road and from them were firing on trucks that tried to reach the beleaguered city with vital food-stuffs and supplies. Dir Yassin, like the strategic hill and village of Kastel, was one of these vantage points. In fact, the two villages were interconnected militarily, reinforcements passing from Dir Yassin to Kastel during the fierce engagement for that hill."

- Abba Eban, Background Notes on Current Themes - No.6: Dir Yassin (Jerusalem: Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Information Division, 16 March 1969)



Also, anybody who reads Benny Morris should also read Efraim Karsh. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/ek.html

Karsh analyzed both arabic and hebrew documents (Morris is not fluent in arabic unlike Karsh) from the time and Karsh shows where Morris has taken some of his points out of context.

Excerpt: http://www.meforum.org/article/466



After reading at least one of Karsh's books, Morris himself stated:

"Karsh has a point. My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial".

Benny Morris, Times Literary Supplement
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/humanities/medstu/rev2bk.html

[Mediocrates]

Sharon himself offers a very direct and simple explanation of that event in his autobiography.

The site was a vantage point known to house terrorists who were actively launching attacks into Israel.

It was one of many such sites.

Commandos had previously WARNED the inhabitants of other such sites before moving in.

When they moved in the commandos demolished EMPTY buildings as a warning.

On the event of Deir Yassin S.O.P. was employed the same way.

The residents, who were then as now surrounding the terrorists, had decided that the commandos would once again demolish empty buildings.

They did not vacate even though they were warned.

It was the middle of the night, very dark.

The commandos demolished the buildings they saw.

People died in the rubble.

End of story.

[Binyamin]

Menachem Begin gives a similair description of Dier Yassin (BTW, today i'm told it's Har Nof).

(I did not say that Josephus was grossly distorted. I understand he was biased, but I do not know how bad he is. He is considered generally reliable, but he tried to please the Romans. (Just to clarify))

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Jorge
I know all this from bitter experience; one of my uncles is an historian; a truly irritating person. Just as an example: a few months ago in a family party for Lag Ba’Omer, around a bonfire and all that, he says --Did you know that there’s no documentary evidence about Bar Kochva?
Mentioned in Medrash Eichah and what do you do with all those coins found minted during his time, calling for independence from Rome? Who led such an audacious revolt?

What's your uncle looking for? A video perhaps?

For a brief overview of Bar Kochvah, look here (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/revolt1.html) and especially here (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Kokhba.html), where it states old news:

Letters written in his name between 132 and 134 C.E., found in the Judean desert between 1952 and 1961, reveal his concern for Jewish observance. These letters also show his preoccupation with everyday issues such as supplying food to the camp and solving problems of land ownership.

Indeed Jorge, as you've shown us by example, historians are terribly unreliable but history itself is one of the best teachers. The problem is finding a reliable and honest tutor. With that in hand, you can turn the world right-side up again.

[MGB8]

Historians are just like your uncle, Jorge. They are people. They have perspectives and agendas that can cloud their reporting of the facts.

In Benny Morris' case, he reports incomplete facts with an agenda seemingly based on Jewish guilt - to take more blame than is deserved for some clearly horrible things (war is always horrible), and Morris ignores many things that don't fit with his goal of confessing Jewish guilt.

Of course, Benny Morris, as shown above, and in his more recent works, is seeming to start to wake up, to take his head out of the sand. When will you do the same, Jorge?