Do You Think The Current Progress Between Israel And Palestine Will Last?

[DistressedAmerican]

I posted a thread on a related topic and was a bit surprised at how skeptical people were of the current peace process progress.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1576012

So I ask you, do you think the activity going on over there is real progress toward peace or is it just a show doomed to fail as so many attempts before it have? What's the DU pulse on this thing?

DA
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[newportdadde]

1. I don't think it will last.

It never has so far, these to sides have hated each other for so very long, I just don't see it happening.

[sendero]

2. I would like to think so..

... but history says no.

There are many who will say that with Arafat out of the way, real progress can be made. That is wishful thinking IMHO, the problems go way, way deeper than just Arafat.

[GetTheRightVote]

3. NO, Palestinians do not have a real leader yet, this is all created by *

So he can say he created it I am sure by killing off Arafat.

:kick:

[muse]

12. You are right. Palestinians already marching in the streets

to get Abbas to demand release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. I think this cease fire agreement so soon after he was elected, will just anger the Palestinians - especially the hard liners.

And, I have no confidence that Bush can be helpful at all in the negotiations to create a separate Palestinian state. King Abullah and Mobarek will need to take the lead on this. They have the understanding of the historical and current situation and can better take into account the future reprocussions of a peace treaty.

[neweurope]

4. No. The Bushistas need a success right now so they've been pressuring

both sides. It won't hold I fear.


-------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[CWebster]

5. Oh, Mizz Condoleeeeza is an improvement over Powell?

Already she echoes Bush's hands off policy of leaving it up to the parties involved. Nothing will change, other than they won't have Arafat to pin the blame on anymore. The Palestinians will never accept the Occupation, and they shouldn't be forced to accept some kind of fraud like "Barak's generous offer". Neo-cons tightly linked to the Israli-right-wing Likud, won't accept any challenge Zionist manifest destiny.

[Spinzonner]

6. Only if both sides can muster the courage

to decide and apply the maxim that ultimate peace is more important than revenge for the acts of the extremists of the other side and to reject and reign-in those extremists of their own side.

Based upon the past and the politcal fragility of the governments on both sides, that doesnt appear promising over the long haul.

[Ian David]

7. Should be despite george bush, not inspite of

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Well actually...

Should be a space between in and spite. I'll fix it. Thanks for the grammar head's up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=in%20spite%20of

Idiom:
in spite of
Not stopped by; regardless of: They kept going in spite of their fears.


For example:
The peace progress was "not stopped by" Bush's incompetence.
It is progressing "regardless of" the administrations failure to commit any resources to the process.

On Edit: Graphic is fixed.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DistantWind88]

11. Yeah it's always

all Israel's fault. They force those poor Palestinians to blow themselves up on busses or in pizza parlors killing innocents in the process. When are they going to learn?

[hector459]

13. It may not be a suicide bomer but I believe Israel will think of something

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, knowing what it would incite, was the trigger for the latest intafada. Arafat is dead, so Sharon will have to "shit or get off the pot" because they don't have Arafat to kick around anymore. But those orthadox Jews will not give up easily. Remember, it was not a Palestinian who killed Rabin. This is how far they will go. Just like the fanatics in this country who were behind the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK.

[notadmblnd]

14. you're statement is probably closer to the truth that you know.

nt

[DistantWind88]

16. Sigh.

[CWebster]

19. You do know that 3 times as many Palestinians than Isralis

have been killed?

Didn't think you knew.

[DistantWind88]

20. I did know that

That's not the point. The point is I don't think the Israelis force Palestinians to blow themselves up on busses and pizza parlors.

I think the Palis do that ALL on their own--well, with some bidding by their "leaders."

[CWebster]

21. Well, I guess they wouldn't IF

they had the third largest military in the world funded by the superpower and received more foreign aid than any where else in the world.

[DistantWind88]

23. Third largest military?

How did you arrive at that statement? I assume you are counting a BUNCH of reserves?

And even if they WERE, they are still not compelling young Palis to become suicide bombers.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. I think the point is that both sides are fighting a war

with what they have. Personally, I think it sucks that innocents loose their lives in war. However, both sides have killed large numbers of innocent people that were just going about their daily lives.

Arguing over the weaponry deployed in the war is the same blame game that has fueled this conflict for all of these years. How about we just accept that both sides have done horrible things and work at ending it.

That is why I so appalled that BushCo. has so solidly stood with Israel throughout the last 4 years. If any progress can come out of US intervention (and I an very skeptical of that), it will be as an "honest broker", even handed with each.

Giving Israel the carrot all the time while, whacking the shit pout of the Palestinians with the stick is not a productive policy. That's why it interests me that this thing seems to be rolling without much overt support from the administration.

In the end, they need to work it out themselves anyway. There is nothing that WE can force down their throats that will serve as a lasting solution.

[DistantWind88]

27. EVERY US President has stood pretty solidly behind Israel

since the creation of Israel. Think there might be a reason for that?

I don't care if there is a war...you DON'T purposely target civilians EVER. It's wrong no matter who does it.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. Name a single war where it hasn't happened...

We're doing it right now if reports from Iraq can be believed.

Again, I suggest accepting that fact that the future is best served by ending this type of tit-for-tat blame game. If We can't even get over it, they NEVER will.

It is the major impediment to peace in the region. It is far larger than American "helping" or "hindering" of the process.

And yes there is a reason that we have generally (and I stress that) have sided with Israel. Several. The biggest two are that we have wanted a single country in the region that didn't hate us. Second, that Christian right wack jobs demand slavish support for the country because when the "second coming" happens, they need a stage.

[DistantWind88]

32. I'd LIKE to believe we are not

PURPOSELY targeting civilians in Iraq. We didn't in Kosovo and Bosnia.

[CWebster]

33. Unbelievable. nt

[DistantWind88]

35. What is?

If you have facts to show I'm wrong in my belief, I'd be happy to view them and change my opinion. I don't believe as a matter of policy we purposely target civilians. I've given two recent examples were we didn't. I'm open to your rebuttal.

[CWebster]

37. Regardless of the noble sounding spin

War is about terrorizing civilians, whether it is through bombing, midnight searches, sweeping round-ups and imprisonment, torture, destruction of infrastructure, natural resources, heritage, negative characterization of national identity, targeted destruction and closure of hospitals, bribed proxy armies and policing forces without alternative employment and the over 100 thousand Iraqi dead can be shrugged off as terrorists.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. I have read accounts from soldiers themselves

that suggest in some cases we are at the very minimum targeting indiscriminately. What I ask you, is the difference to those folks that bought it?

How about civilians that lost everything they had with the possible exception of their lives (and we will NEVER know how many lost those) in places like Falluja? Do you think they were intentionally targeted?

Remember that good and honorable WWII? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Dresden?

Every war has innocents killed. War is the enemy! Not one single tactic that is demonized by one side or the other for propoganda value! This hang up on the word "terrorist" is one that is foisted when the people being killed are being killed for political motives that do not agree with your own.

I work in Central America. I can tell you that we have done our share of targeting civilians in that region. Oh yeah, that was "freedom fighters" doing that.

The sooner we realize that civilians have always been targeted, villages burned to save them, "suspicious" innocents killed "accidentally", cities targeted, etc. the better will be able to deal with the root causes of the violence rather than missing the forest for the trees.

WHO DOES THIS KID THINK THE "TERRORISTS" ARE?

[DistantWind88]

40. During WWII

We DID purposely target civilians. I'm not denying that. That was actually policy. Different war, different time, employing the concept of total war. I don't ascribe to that.

You are right, the end result may be the same, BUT intent is still important. If not, every homicide would be murder.

[CWebster]

31. Except when it is Palestinian civilians targeted?

Can't say you exclusively support one side and then claim to recognize both.

[DistantWind88]

34. I stated

"purposely" targeted. That is Palistinian policy.

It's wrong when anyone does it.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. See #36 Hiroshima, etc. Please!

[DistantWind88]

41. Your point?

I'm talking recent events, not WWII. And, under the circumstances of WWII, i can understand why UK and US leaders targeted civilian population centers, don't you?

[DistressedAmerican]

43. Let's play a little game: Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

Question one: The American Revolution - We didn't kill much in the way of British civilians as they were over there. However, colonists loyal to the crown were attacked, killed, homes burned etc. These people were attacked by:
A)Terrorists
B)Brave Americans throwing off the shackles of British oppression

Question 2: The American Civil War - Sherman marches to the sea burning towns en route and killing many civilians. These rebels were attacked by:
A) Terrorists
B) Brave Union Soldiers trying to provide freedom for the slaves

Question 3 WWII - Nagasaki, Hiroshima are spared US bombing as they are secretly slated to be used as pristine proving grounds for a bomb meant to get Russia's attention. Over 200,000 civilians are killed by::
A) Terrorists
B) Brave Americans trying to prevent the loss of American lives.

Question 4: Vietnam - Numerous villages are burned, untold number of civilians killed by American soldiers trying to "save" them. These people were killed and their lives ruined by:
A) Terrorists
B) Brave Americans trying to prevent the spread of Godless communism through Southeast Asia

Question 5: Covert wars in Central America - Again rural villages attacked, and civilians (even priests and nuns) targeted by the CIA and their US funded death squads. These civilians were intentionally targeted by:
A) Terrorists
B) Brave Covert Americans trying to stem the spread of Godless communism in the Western Hemisphere


My point? ALL WARS throughout time have intentionally targeted civilians.

I do not know the details of who exactly was under the bombs dropped in Bosnia and Kosovo at this point to answer for what civilians were targeted in those campaigns. We may both be able to discuss that in detail in 20 or 30 years unless you have access to classified info?

[CWebster]

30. "Work it out themselves" can never happen

as long as the US frowns on an "even-handed" policy. Hello john Kerry.

[CWebster]

15. See:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1705398

[leftynyc]

24. And don't forget forcing them to make

martyr videos which get shown on TV - and they force their families to celebrate their martyrdom. Yeah, it's all the Israeli's fault.

[DistantWind88]

25. Oh yeah, I forgot about

how Israel forces them to do that too.

[leftynyc]

38. Sorry to have butted into your conversation. (eom)

[DistantWind88]

42. Quite alright!!

[noonwitch]

10. It depends on how much control Abbas has over would-be bombers

If he can convince the palestineans not to blow up israeli targets, he might get somewhere. Otherwise, the israelis will just say that he's no better than Arafat, and the right wing christians in this country will work to undermine any peace effort with their unequivocal support of Sharon's policies.

[DistressedAmerican]

17. Seems like the Israelis are pretty convinced that he has some

or they are just trying to look good if it does go south.

Don't want to look like "obstructionists" you know. God forbid!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. It Would Be Nice To See Folks Let Go Of Historical Grievances

And Reach Some Kind Of A Compromise...


But I'm not holding my breath....

[AG78]

22. It'll be a good show

But it won't work.

[Igel]

28. Won't work. Eventually they'll come to the same conclusion they

came to before: they both want the same things, and peace isn't the most highly ranked among them.

[centristo]

46. you are so right...

The average Israeli would much rather have to worry about being blown to bits on a bus or in a shopping mall then have to concede an autonomous state to their "enemy" the Palestinians.

And likewise the average Palestinian would rather have checkpoints, curfews and limited rights and privelages as a second-class citizen than have their own state alongside Israel.

To say both sides don't want peace is a complete myth. What is true is that both sides have a MINORITY of EXTREMISTS that are loud, vocal, influential and armed to the teeth. Do not perpetuate myths that the average citizen enjoys the current situation. Back in the early 90s Israelis were shopping and having lunch in Gaza City. Palestinians were working and going to school in Israel.

[gulfcoastliberal]

44. It will last until Abbas is assasinated by his own people

Palestinians will not allow him to continue bargaining with Israel.

[centristo]

45. you're close....

Hamas and the other terrorist agencies do not want Abu Mazen to negotiate with Israel. Do you really think the average Palestinian person is happy with the choices their leadership has made thus far? They have nothing right now. No state, no army, no infrastrucutre, no independant economy...

Peace with Israel will benefit many, many Palestinians, assuming a broad relaxation of the numerous restrictions the populace is currently under. The only people who have to anything to lose with peace are the terrorist organizations that have clout, respect and power in the OT.

I am disappointed to see so much skepticism on this forum. This is the best chance for peace I've seen in the last decade. You cannot walk forward while looking backward. Both sides have committed numerous horrific crimes. They are at war. Sadly, these things happen. To reach a lasting peace history shows that you have to forgive your enemy and join them as a partner to peace. The Allies didn't rake Germany over the coals as revenge for the lives lost in the Holocaust and WWII. They instituted the Marshall Plan and rebuilt the country.