Uri Avnery: Blood on Our Hands

[Tom Joad]

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1176590184

AT THIS moment, negotiations on a prisoner exchange are in full swing. The term "negotiations" is really inappropriate. "Haggling" seems more fitting. One could also use an uglier expression: "trafficking in human beings".

The planned deal concerns living people. They are being treated like goods, for which the officials of the two sides are bargaining, as if they were a piece of land or a load of fruit.

In their own eyes, and in the eyes of their spouses, parents and children, they are not goods. They are life itself.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER the signing of the Oslo agreement in 1993, "Gush Shalom" publicly called on the Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, to free all the Palestinian prisoners.

The logic was simple: they are in reality prisoners-of-war. They did what they did in the service of their people, exactly like our own soldiers. The people who sent them were the chiefs of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) with whom we have just signed a far-reaching agreement. Is there any sense in signing an agreement with the commanders, while their subordinates continue to languish in our jails?
(snip)
The fiction that freedom-fighters are common criminals is necessary for the legitimation of a colonial regime, and makes it easier for a soldier to shoot people. It is, of course, twisted. A common criminal acts in his own interest. A freedom fighter or "terrorist", like most soldiers, believes that he is serving his people or cause.

[panader0]

1. Like freedom fighter or "terrorist', The word "insurgent" is

bandied around in the press like it means something really bad. The so called "insurgents" are merely people defending their homelands. If there was a foriegn occupier in this country, I would be an insurgent.

[Shaktimaan]

5. are you aware of what crimes we are talking about here?

They are not people just defending their homes in many cases. There is a line, a clear line, between terrorism and combat. Anyone who planned attacks against civilians with the intent of maximizing casualties among women and children is not the kind of person you are defending here. And there are some truly horrible stories with no practicle defensive benefit. Trying to force settlers out by killing their kids is not defense. Collateral damage is different. But the purposeful killing, targeting even, of children is in fact, really bad.

also, don't forget. many palestinians are not originally from palestine. and many jews are not orginally from europe. nothing is black and white here. Arafat himself was an Egyptian after all. A country which expelled almost all of its Jews who then went to settle in Israel. Think hard before choosing sides.

[Tom Joad]

6. I choose human rights, i choose peace. I choose international law

[The Magistrate]

7. As Opposed To What, Mr. Joad?

This "one platitude fits all" technique performs no better here than "one size fits all" does for panty-hose....

[Violet_Crumble]

10. So is it one or all of those things you oppose?

Human rights? Peace? International law? Because there's nothing platitudish about voicing a support for all three of those things. It's much preferable to the ridiculous attitude of some that one must throw their support behind either Israel or Palestine and never criticise or question the actions of the side they're supporting....

[The Magistrate]

15. Employed In the Manner They Are Above, Ma'am

Those words have no more meaning than the clatter of a wind chime; they are an utter nonsequiter, worthy of the young Miss Allen in her comedic prime. They convey no sense at all, as a response to a serious request that someone consider the actual character of what he glibly dismissed as 'people defending their homelands'. They are simply a chant, a mantra in some forgotten and long meaningless tongue, that is employed in attempt to claim some moral high ground on which one is immune from criticism or disagreement.

Those chanted phrases can only take on meaning when they are thoughtfully applied to the facts of actual situations, real actions and events. When a person does not do this, there is nothing to engage, no meaning conveyed. There is not even any real stand taken, for or against anything. One might as well cry "Who doesn't love ice-cream on a summer afternoon?"

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I support human rights. I support peace. I support international law...

If *you* have any trouble understanding that, I'm more than willing to spell it out r-e-a-l slow...

And stop calling me Ma'am...

[The Magistrate]

17. How Do You Do These Things, Ms. Crumble?

What do they mean, in the situation being discussed here, a war of peoples that has endured nearly a century?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Quite Simple. I Type What I Know Most People Will Understand With Little Trouble...

You are honestly telling me that you have no idea what human rights, peace, and international law means in the context of the I/P conflict???

Here's another *platitude* for you to ponder. I'm also anti-innocent people being killed in this conflict. Which is why I support human rights, international law, and peace...

[The Magistrate]

19. Perhaps Then, Ma'am, As You Suggested, We Should Take This Slowly

What is 'peace' in this situation?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I Hope This Will Be Slow Enough For You...

*Peace* is what (hopefully, but I'm not sure) all of us want to see eventuate out of this conflict. A peace where both Palestinians and Israelis live without having to fear attacks on themselves, and where both states have fair and clearly defined borders. Peace will bring a breaking down of the distrust between the people, and will lead to both states behaving like responsible members of the international community instead of toddlers throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their own way...

[The Magistrate]

21. The Paranthetical Interests Me, Ma'am

Who is it here you suppose does not want such a happy state?

You have at least hit on the key element, namely a state in which the people of both sides do not have to fear attacks on themselves. That is the essence of it, and the remaining items you mention are extraneous, though perhaps desireable, and some are simply grounds for further quarrel. What, for instance, would constitute 'fair' borders? That is in large part what the fighting is about, that the two sides cannot seem to agree on what those might be.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. You Are Very Aware That I Can't Name Names..

Personally, I think anyone who has participated in this forum over such a long period of time should be very aware that at times what gets posted by some does make one wonder whether they want to see a fair and lasting peace. Are you disagreeing with that?

[The Magistrate]

23. So You Are, Then, Ma'am, Refering To Members Of The Forum

Would you care to make any comment on the distribution of these hypothetical 'dead-enders' between the contending sides here?

Though admittedly we are straying from the question of 'fair' borders, it is not without interest....

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Could you answer the question I asked you? n/t

[The Magistrate]

25. What Question, Ma'am?

We have not even settled what 'fair borders' might be: what constitutes a 'fair peace' lies well beyond the horizon before us. It is quite possible for you to conceive as a 'fair peace' something that would move me to head up into the hills with a shotgun and as much dynamite and detonators as could be procured, and vice versa. Indeed, something very similar to this is going on in the long war of the peoples, as leaders on each side seem to conceive to be a 'fair peace' something the other seems to feel a grave threat, or even its own looming destruction, were it to become the current relation of the peoples.

But clarification of your statements concerning members of this forum continues to interest me, as you seem to be of the view some here wish only the continuation of hostilities, and it would be good to know how widespread you feel this attitude to be.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. You didn't answer the question in post 22. Can you please answer it? n/t

[The Magistrate]

27. It Is Not Answerable On The Terms In Which It Is Posed, Ma'am

Because it does not convey a clear meaning in light of which it could be answered sensibly.

It does seem clear that you are unwilling to clarify your own statements concerning members of this forum, however.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Then let me clarify it for you...

What is so unclear about such a simple question that you just can't answer it? It does seem clear that you are unwilling to answer a question that merely asks if you honestly believe that there haven't been posters in this forum who by their own posted words appear to not want peace?

Too right I'm unwilling to be drawn into any 'discussion' with you about my views until you pay me the simple courtesy of answering my question, and knock off calling me Ma'am...

btw, since when was what I said about 'members of this forum'??

[The Magistrate]

29. It Is Not A Simple Question, Ms. Crumble

Perhaps it is the belief that it is simple is a good part of the problem. You, of course, would probably have some idea of what you mean, and the standard you are employing, and could readily answer on your own terms what you felt the distribution of such persons between the two side here was.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. It's a pretty damn simple question...

Or have the antisemites and the haters of Arabs who have posted here in the past just been a figment of my imagination?? The only thing those two bunches have in common is a desire for a win-lose scenario where their favoured side prevails and the other vanishes. Care to give it another try now?

Oh yeah. I'm not a fucking statistician and I'm so sorry to break the news to you that I haven't been keeping stats. The only thing that concerns me is watching them end up tombstoned sooner or later...

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[pelsar]

33. the word "fair"

i'm always amused when i see the word "fair" used in some kind of plea for peace. I get the impression that those who use it almost always do not live in the middle east and no doubt come from some western democracy that probably had some kind of colonial past. What else could explain the idea that there is but one definition of the word "fair" in this conflict, and "they" know what it is.

some kind of cultural ethnocentrism that negates the "locals" various version of fair.....remnants of colonial past that just cant seem to go away.......

[The Magistrate]

34. Even More Simply, Sir

If the same thing struck both peoples as fair, they would not be fighting in the first place, but would have resolved their difficulties amicably long ago.

The fact is that any settlement to this conflict is going to have to strike a great a great many people on both sides as decidely unfair to them. It will be only the knowledge that the other side is complaining too that will give people any reason to accept and abide by it....

"Fair's fair."

[Shaktimaan]

8. Very good Tom. I do adore your sophisticated take on this subject.

To delve further in then... do you choose incarceration for some of the most cold-blooded murderers that this conflict has produced? Men such as Samir Kuntar, (I am sure you know who he is) or Baruch Goldstein and Eden Natan-Zad (were they alive), for example. Or do you choose blanket exoneration?

[Violet_Crumble]

9. 'Think hard before choosing sides' isn't a particularly sophisticated take on the conflict...

That choose one side over the other stuff is so one-dimensional. Also one-dimensional and not particularly true is any claim that Arafat wasn't Palestinian, or any claim that many Palestinians aren't actually from Palestine...

[Shaktimaan]

11. You just look for openings, never try and absorb my point.

The choosing sides comment was facecious. Many people look at this conflict from a single POV or reflect on a single narrative. My comment was meant to imply that should one see the need to boil this conflict down to one-side-right, one-side-wrong, then they should at least undertake the proper required reading that blows that whole idea out of the water for most of us. It was not encouragement to actually choose a side. It was a reminder that things are not always cut and dry.

And Arafat was Egyptian. His formative years were spent there, you can hear it in his speech. Egyptian Arabic is specific, ask any native speaker. Even I can tell the difference between it and, say, Moroccan arabic on a good day.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I absorbed it just fine...

If those words came from someone who looked at things from a less than one-sided stance, I'd take it as facecious...

Sorry, but Arafat was Palestinian. He was born in Egypt, but his parents were Palestinian. Does that mean you think that Palestinian refugees born in countries like Lebanon aren't actually Palestinian? Also, that comment of yrs claiming that most Palestinians don't originate from Palestine was incorrect as well. While some of the more extreme Joan Peters types will try to claim that, it's clearly not true at all, and a good book to read about the history of the Palestinian people is http://amazon.com/Palestinian-People-History-Baruch-Kimmerling/dp/0674011295">'The Palestinian People: a history by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S Migdal.

[Tom Joad]

12. To many of us, people are people, and oppression is oppression

and must be challanged.

I'm Sure during the civil rights struggle, some looked at it like that too "so whose side you on, the white man's or the black man's?" A very inaccurate way of framing the whole question.

But some persist. makes things simple for them.

And to parrot the discredited Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial lie is really ...well... speaks for itself.
Palestinians come from Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Yep, and if it's a *platitude*, it's one I embrace willingly...

Human rights, peace, and international law are all things that everyone should support for both Palestinians and Israelis. Because it's those things and a strong belief that civilians on either side must be protected from attacks by combatants in this conflict that make us better than the conservatives I've seen 'discuss' this issue on other parts of the internet...

[Shaktimaan]

32. Ah, but so do Jews,

which is my point. To use the green line as anything other than a de-facto border is disingenuous. Who ends up with what land for their state must be decided through negotiation. Trying to frame the debate as one side stealing land is conjecture. You might as well say the same thing of the Jordanians who have done worse by the Palestinians than the Israelis have incidentally. I am not trying to discredit Arafat's claim to Palestine. Merely point out that there are others whose claim equals or trumps his own. Not every Palestinian was born in Palestine and was tossed out during the Nakba. And not every Israeli is a transplant from Europe. Trying to simplify things by drawing your own borders does not help much.

I am on both sides of this struggle. However my faith in the Palestinian leadership took a severe blow when Arafat canned the camp david negotiations wholesale. They deserve their own state. But they do not deserve everything they may want for it. Their behavior compared to Israel's in terms of safeguarding religous sites leaves much to be desired and clearly illustrates their inability to govern areas like the old city with the same egalitarian hand as Israel has done. But that's practicality for you. In terms of "justice" it is clear that no group will end up with its fair share at the end of this conflict. I would rather not put the onus completely on Israel without also calling on everyone else to do the same.

If we are talking historic homelands here then by all rights Iraq should be jewish. Yet I doubt you would support a zionist takeover of babylon. We were expelled from Iraq, that's the shakes. Just because the Palestinians are willing to destroy their society in order to reclaim every square inch of what they see as their birthright does not make it any more valid than Israel marching on Baghdad with dreams of colonialism.

[richards1052]

2. Azmi Bishara Resigns from Knesset

Sorry, Tom Joad to piggyback on yr post...but I can't yet post my own material & I wanted to let people here know the important news that Azmi Bishara, Israel's leading Arab politician, has . It means he has given up his parliamentary immunity to face the secret investigation the Shin Bet has mounted against him. It also means that Bishara is likely remain out of Israel for the foreseeable future. It's a big chess game & hard to figure out the moves & why the players are making them.

[Tom Joad]

3. Richard, i just posted that story, thanks.

You can add your comments to that.

[The Magistrate]

4. It is Haggling, Mr. Joad, And Quite Unseemly

If the prisoners held by Israel are to be regarded as prisoners of war, which would in my view be quite proper, that treatment would extend to exchange arrangements, which are generally, in an on-going conflict, one for one, and of comparable rank. Thus, an Israeli reserve corporal would be exchanged for a Arab Palestinian militant of similar authority within the militant body he belongs to....