response 151 of 173:

Jun 13 18:30 UTC 2002

I dont claim to know why the Palestinians choose to do what they do. I 
do know that whenever a group sends in a suicide bomber it:

1) Makes them look bad
2) Takes the world's attention from away from any problems they face
3) Disrupts the peace process
4) Scares moderate Israelis who probably would support the Palestinian 
cause.


Nothing would be worse for those settlers than for the Palestinians to 
start a peaceful resistance (unless you are right and there is nothing 
to resist, of course.) If the Palestinians did that, I would expect 
that eventually Israel would be treated by the international community 
like South Africa was treated in the 80's and 90's.  

There are all kinds of problems with the article I posted, I dont deny 
that. However there are lots of good points in it. One of them is that 
there are extremists on both sides and those extremists seem to be 
calling the shots. As much as we all like to talk about "The Israelis" 
and "The Palestinians" the fact is that both groups contain people with 
all kinds of different view points and opinions. But for some reason, 
it is the radical element on both sides that has the loudest voices. 

It makes me think of a joke Jon Stewart made after the Likud parties 
vote that they were opposed to a Palestinian state and Sharon's 
difference of opinion. He said something like "you know you are in 
trouble when Ariel Sharon is your dove of peace" I consider both Sharon 
and Arafat to be far from the center and yet they each are in power. 
The radical elements on both sides have too much say. 

response 153 of 173:

Jun 14 15:14 UTC 2002

Lynne, your latest response is almost as problematic as the article and
exposes many underlying presumptions that simply aren't true and which
skew your perception of the conflict:

> Nothing would be worse for those settlers than for the Palestinians to
> start a peaceful resistance (unless you are right and there is nothing
> to resist, of course.)

Congratulations. You may have just figured out why there isn't peaceful
"resistance". The very voices of peace within the Arab world, who might
stage peaceful resistance, are laying low lest they be labeled as
"collaborators". Not just by the many thugs with guns running around the
areas under Arafat's control, but by the PA itself.  (In Egypt, an
"intellectual" was sentenced to a 10(?) year jail term.)

> If the Palestinians did that, I would expect that eventually Israel would
> be treated by the international community like South Africa was treated in
> the 80's and 90's.

BS. The world should treat Israel based on what it does, not on how the
Palestinian Arabs react.  There is no comparison to South Africa, not in
the disputed territories let alone in Israel proper.  (Part of this false
charge is based on the misinformation that the Clinton compromise would
have split the "west bank" (of Trans-Jordanian Palestine) into numerous
cantons like South Africa's Bantustans.  As US Ambassador Dennis Ross
stated unequivocally (see item 125), this is false.  The South African
Bantustans were not independent countries and amounted to a mere 14% of
the land. The Clinton compromise envisioned 100% of Gaza and a CONTIGUOUS
97% of the WB becoming an internationally recognized independent Arab state.

> There are all kinds of problems with the article I posted, I dont deny
> that. However there are lots of good points in it. One of them is that
> there are extremists on both sides and those extremists seem to be
> calling the shots....  it is the radical element on both sides that has
> the loudest voices.

BS. The Israeli government is a parliamentary coalition composed of
democratically elected representatives. The prime minister's government
can be brought down at any time with a no confidence motion (not like in
the US, where we have to wait 4 years to re-elect a new leader in all but
the most extreme of cases).  That ruling coalition is composed of people
from the right and left and is not controlled by extremists.

Under the PA, though, power is held by extremists with guns. They are so
powerful, Arafat tells us, that even he is powerless against them. Or
maybe it's that he doesn't want to move against them because he is with them.
(No elections have been held in the territories since Israel relinquished
control to the PA. Arafat had cancelled elections and only recently,
following reforms made possible by Israeli military action, has there
been a call for new elections.)

> It makes me think of a joke Jon Stewart made after the Likud parties
> vote that they were opposed to a Palestinian state and Sharon's
> difference of opinion. He said something like "you know you are in
> trouble when Ariel Sharon is your dove of peace"

Stewart is a comedian who is playing on a stereotype. You should treat
the issues more seriously, perhaps getting your news and analysis from
CNN or ABC and not Comedy Central.

response 155 of 173:

Jun 15 00:35 UTC 2002

Leeron thinks that he can make things more true by saying them at
greater length.  The Israeli parliamentary system that Leeron describes
appears to be copied more or less directly from the English
parliamentary system; this in turn evolved from a situation very much
like what Leeron describes for the PA, except that the persons concerned
had swords instead of guns.  Of course, since the PA & Israeli people
have both been natives since forever and owe nothing of their cultural
heritage to western influence this must surely both be coincidental, or
perhaps the ancient & modern british copied their systems after the PA &
israeli states.

In any event, one of the chief purposes of a parliamentary system, or
indeed any successful democractic system, is to make decisions.  In
order to make that decision process terminate in a sufficiently short
period of time, the system is designed to magnify and concentrate
differences.  If there are several opposing yet popular opinions, this
may result in some sort of oscillating pendulum activity, as different
groups gain control in succession.  This tendency can be observed even
in the US, which has a relatively subdued system due to the executive
branch being directly elected for fixed terms independently of the
legislative branch.  In a parlimentary system, the executive branch
serves more or less at the mercy of the legislature, so tends to be more
volatile and issues-driven.  In some cases, one party controls enough of
the legislature that the executive branch can serve that one party, and
its issues, to the exclusion of all others.  In other cases, there may
be no one party that has such strength, in which case multiple parties
must agree to suspend their individual differences and support a
coalition government.  Such a coalition can be either weark or strong,
according to how compatible the goals of the different parties are, and
how much of a majority they can claim.  In neither case is there a
necesity for the executive branch to be particularly "moderate"; in some
cases, where the opposition is sufficiently divided internally, the
stable executive branch may well end up being relatively fringe, and
this can happen even if the opposition consists primarily of so-called
moderates.

Leeron somehow seems to feel Israeli politics are free of guns or
extremists.  This is manifestly not the case; Rabin was not assasinated
by Arabs, and Sharon's personal expertise does not lie with cake
decorating.

response 157 of 173:

Jun 15 01:39 UTC 2002

If anyone understands 155, would he/she please explain it to me.  Particularly
the bit about fgun wielding politicians.

response 159 of 173:

Jun 15 05:21 UTC 2002

For all of mdw's theoretical ranting, the fact of the matter is that
Sharon has been balancing different sides of the pendulum and that despite
the fact that 2 years ago his political career was limited, today he
enjoys a 62% approval rating from the Israeli electorate, at least half
of whom are doves.  What's funny about Stewart's joke is that he (like
so many others) doesn't get it: Sharon has not lived up to the expectation
of his critics -- not that this silences them as they continue to criticize
him not based upon what he has done or is doing, but based upon their own
perceptions of him.

While Marcus may be correct that the Israeli parliamentary system is based
on the English system (makes sense given the British Mandate period, but I
suspect it may have other European influences as well as American -- for
example Israelis now vote not just for a list but also directly for the
prime minister), but the fact that the English system evolved over
hundreds of years doesn't make the Israeli system (analogous to the
present English system) the same as the PA system (analogous to the
English system ~800 years ago).  Quite to the contrary, Marcus' point
underscores what I said.

We only need listen to Arafat who claims he can't control the extremists.
The truth may be that he "won't", but I don't hear Sharon seeking the
same excuses.

Marcus can twist this until he starts mooing again, but the simple fact
of the matter is that Israel is a healthy democratic state (even the
Palestinians give it higher ratings than both American and European
democracies!) whereas the PA is a dictatorship where the strongman pleads
no contest to various militias and thugs who often terrorize not just
Israeli society but their own populace as well.

It's ironic that while many Arabs in the territories are calling for
democratic reform within the PA, its "progressive" apologists here are
still in denial about the need for such reforms.

response 161 of 173:

Jun 16 16:29 UTC 2002

Marcus, it is Israel who introduced democracy to the region. Can
you name another state in the mideast with elections (and where
women can also vote)?  It is precisely this seed which is now
starting to bloom in the territories -- the internal call for
reform that became possible after Arafat's embarrasing military
defeat in April.

Note also that it is the international community that has been
forcing Israel to deal with Arafat these past 10 years. So please
don't fall into Rabbi Lerner's trap of saying that the worst thing
Israel has done to the Palestinians is to foist Arafat upon them.

While some still adore this murderer, the world is starting to realize
its mistake:
 
18:32   U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: Palestinians should
        replace Arafat to increase chances for peace 

Arafat may be the first Arab leader to "retire", even if only into a
ceremonial role.  (Recall also that other Arab negotiators wanted to
accept the Clinton compromise, it was Arafat who torpedoed it.)

response 163 of 173:

Jun 17 17:32 UTC 2002

Regarding democracy:

16:39   Palestinian intellectuals, activists launch national movement for
        democratic and welfare reform in PA 

response 165 of 173:

Jun 18 15:44 UTC 2002

I welcome it. It's unfortunate that it took 8 years for such a movement
to come out and I'll note that it only became possible following the
recent Israeli counter-offensive which constituted a military loss for
Arafat.  What remains to be seen is if this movement can grow and gain
support amongst the populace -- and maybe even evolve to become the
first peace group in an area under Arab government.

response 167 of 173:

Jun 19 16:07 UTC 2002

Perhaps you'd better be a little careful yourself, Russ.  I didn't say 
you said anything about my intelligence.  I was telling you that I'm not 
an idiot lest, blinded by hubris, you forget.  You were patronizing and 
deliberate, and, if #166 is any example, assume that I need a refresher 
on the finer points of conducting oneself like a reasonable, able-minded 
adult.  I assure you I do not.  Perhaps you ought to pay attention to 
who's putting words in whose mouth.  Clearly you haven't done a 
stellar job so far.

response 169 of 173:

Jun 20 19:34 UTC 2002

Trust me, Russ.  You'll know a rant from me when you see it.  Before 
responding to a post I have the bloody good sense to read it again.  I 
wasn't responding to your mention of Keats.  I was initially responding 
to you obvious reply that followed it, and not in a nasty way, either.  
My "rant" as you so call it was directed to your irritating attempts to 
tell me how to conduct myself, as if I do not know how to behave.   I 
don't have to explain further in my opinion.  If you wish to know why I 
respond to your overbearing directives in this manner, just read #167 
again.

response 171 of 173:

Jun 22 12:31 UTC 2002

I suppose you are perfectly satisfied with the way the 
Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, His Excellency President Yasser
Arafat has bee administering the terrortories.

response 173 of 173:

Jun 24 06:26 UTC 2002

Bullshit, Marcus. Once again you're arguing with straw men.

I said that 100-150 years ago the population was very sparse, but what I
said regarding the current situation is that 98% of the Arabs living in
the disputed territories are living in areas that Israel has already ceded
to the Palestinian Authority and for the past 6-8 years they have not been
living under Israeli "occupation" (let alone "brutal", yet this is the
most common excuse or rationalization for terrorism: the wanton murder of
innocent civilians, as if anything can justify that).

That the PA is a corrupt tyranny, without a free press, without an
independent judiciary, with elections having been suspended by Arafat,
etc., does not mean that "there's no gov't there".

I find it rather puzzling that so many "progressive" thinkers still
consider Arafat (one of the most notorious terrorists of all times)
a "hero" and that they are silent regarding the beast he has created
while reserving their criticism by claiming that Israel is not a democracy.
Ironically, Palestinian Arabs themselves rate Israeli democracy higher
than they do American or French democracy, which just serves to demonstrate
that such "leftists" are detached from reality.