פרסומים אחרונים במדור "פוליטיקה"

I just want to answer your question
about the differences between the
lands occupied in '67 or in '48.
There is no difference !
The historic crime done by us ( and by
us I mean the zionists) can not be
turned back. All we can do is to try
and make the palestinians up , by
giving them their pride back (which
sometime is more important than one
percent more or less of land).
How , you ask ? well , first by treeting
them as human beings. by giving them
a passport , a goverment , a country
a flag to salute and I can go on , but
I believe you already got the point.

I'm not going to argue with you about
the morality of the Israeli behaviour
during the last 3 decades. I'm ashame
of it and my sorrow is not for people
like you who truely believe these lands
should be ours no matter what. I am
sorry that the only reason for our
goverments to realize this injustice
came after 8 years of citizens fight.
Now , I would really like to hear how
this situation can be turned back...
I don't see it , as much as I don't see
how we can get rid of the palestiniens
like some once thought as a solution.
On the other hand , I can see how we
can take the MITNACHALIM off our
back and out of the conqured lands.
Do you see any other solution (again
I'm ashame to speak of this subject
as a solution rather than a humanity
act , though I have no choise).

Your opinion is very interesting , I
would like to know what is it based on.
Since the begining of the Oslo
conversations Arafat repeatedly said
that the Palestiniens see Jerusalem as
the capital city of Palestin.
For some reason the Israelis (especially
from the left side of the politic view)
ignored these says assuming he said it
to satisfy his voters.
I think Jerusalem should not be
associated with no country whatsoever.
Arrafat doesn't think so for his own
reasons which I disagree with as much
as I disagree with yours.
On the other hand , it certainly donesn't
mean that he wants us out of here.

So what does he want ?
Why does he spend years over years
negotiating with Israelies prime
ministers stubborn as an ox ?
Why did he suffer the humiliation our
beloved Bibi gave him ?
If you were right , why did he leave the
armed resistant to the Israeli conqur
and tried to sign an agreement that
would give his people some dignity ?
I don't look for mathematic equations
just for you to be reasonable and open
minded.

Arafat knows , like everybody else ,
that Israel exists and will remain with
or without the AMANA.
It takes a great man to understand that
reality and hearts desires may
sometime conflict and than to choose
reality.
In this sensitive situation we live in
where two peoples are living in such
a little square , we should be thankfull
that two reasonable men came out
of darkness and started a new way of
talking and understanding each other
instead of fighting a fight that can
never be won.
These two men are Arafat and Rabin
(although I make no comparison).
Their way will win I shall hope despite
all the blood thirsty people living
among both sides.

1) Yes , he finally got himself , actulally
not for him but for his people , a
country. Maybe that what he wanted
and not to destroy Israel ?
2) When he started negotiating with the
Israel's representors, the greatest side
effect of that (beside ending the Fatah
resistant ) was a recognition In the
existent of the country Israel in Israel.
You can't negotioate with an entity that
doesn't exist , can you ?
3) When finally Palestin will be rise , any
violent act of the Palestinians
wouldn't be of an individual act , but
a violent act of a country , which is the
same as declaring a war. Then we'll
have the world's support on our side
and a legitimacy to protect ourselves.
He knows that in that war , he can only
loose. He knows that when Pallestin
will be rise , the Israeli-Palestinian
disagreement will have to end.
4)Finally here's a carzy thought for you.
Maybe the Palestins has more
important thing to do than fight.
Maybe they are after all human beens
and want like anyone else to be able to
live quitely in honor , to work , to have
their calture and a country.Just maybe ?

The Fatah organisation was founded
in the late 1950s with the aim of
liberating Palestine from Israeli control.
Since , 50 years passed , and a lot
had changed on both sides.
The Fatah , these days , is no longer
small terror organisation , so does its
leader (who just earned a novel price
for peace , eather you like it or not).
I agree with you that arguing of Arafat
goals is pointless.

How does is this view of the arabs reconcile with the results of the last survey in Um-Al-Fahm, where over three quarters of the population said they prefer to remain in Israel?

For me it shows that arabs are not blind to economic and practical reasoning, even when matters of dignity and territory are concerned.

I was referring to the view that eliminating Israel is a very high priority of the arabs.

Ha'aretz reported a few weeks ago that a survey was held in Um-Al-Fahm, asking the inhabitants if they would like their city and the surrounding area to belong to a future palestinian state. More than three quarters of the respondents answered negatively to this question, citing superior standard of living in Israel and the more developed democracy as the main reasons.

This shows something about the priorities of Israeli arabs.

Dov,

OK, so we need to agree on the facts.
The survey was reported by Joseph Algazy in Ha'aretz of 1.8.2000, under the title "Umm al Fahm Prefers Israel". It dealt with proposals allegedly toyed with in the Camp David summit (that ended a few days earlier), about a territorial exchange between Israel and the PA: Leaving more settlements in the west bank under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for annexing the northern Meshulash area to the PA.

After the survey was published, arab MKs went on a strong offensive, calling the land-exchange proposal a "transfer" and saying that Israel cannot just "pass" its arabs to another country's rule without asking them first.

The MKs were visibly uneasy with this situation, that exposes the distance between their rhetoric and the reality. But the reality is in the survey, not in the speeches of Dahamshe, who must look militant in order to win popular support.

Arabs had similar dillemas in East Jerusalem (a link:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.dawn.com/20...),
but since these residents don't enjoy full citizen rights, only a small group seriously considers Israeli rule. Inside Israel, arabs enjoy many more benefits and hence the majority doesn't consider the corrupt, authoritarian and economically poor PA as an alternative.

From surveys and conversation with israeli arabs it is evident that they don't like Israel. But they value what it gives them: social security for the unemployed, relatively free speech, higher standard of living. Arafat is perceived as managing a corrupt and militaristic administration. The survey I cited just reaffirms that these views have practical consequences.

In the sixth point of your commment you mention the possibility that israeli arabs weigh their nationalistic sentiment on one side and the comfort of being israeli citizens on the other. I agree to this point and want to expand on it. If I understand you correctly, you say that for israeli arabs nationalism is far more important than persoanl comfort. In other words, they are idealistic people, ready to give up property and freedom of speech in exchange for territory, a flag and a hymn.

But killing the jews is against the selfish interest of israeli arabs, because the jews are responsible for their relative prosperity compared with the PA and Jordan - two other arab countries without oil. So the question is whether rational factors play a part in the thinking of israeli arabs. My opinion is that economic prosperity has a calming effect on them, just like it works everywhere else in the world. I would be glad to see evidence to the contrary.

Dov,

I agree with the general approach of collecting facts and building a thesis. Still, I have a few remarks.

Let's not base an analysis of israeli arabs on the tiny sample that includes their top politicians (say, 100 persons?) and the ideological terrorists (perhaps a few dozens inside the green line). For meaningful results, we need more robust statistical facts.

Second, when trying to judge the relevance of economic factors to violent events, the time scale you use is perhaps too short. It is not simply that in a year when there is 5% rise in GDP there is 20% less terror. These processes develop over a long time scale of decades.

As a first shot, here is my understanding of the relationship between economics and violence:
When a group of people feel that they are so miserable that they have nothing to lose, or, at the other extreme, so strong they cannot possibly lose - then there is danger of widespread violence.

According to this line of thought, if Israeli arabs are constantly aware of what they have to lose, violence will not erupt.

Being convinced is an emotional condition, even if reason leads us to it.

two wrongs make a right.