Over the years of writing and wrestling with Israel/Palestine, Akiva Orr has become a supportive figure. Born in 1930’s Berlin, Orr has lived the entirety of Israel’s existence. From Eric Fried to Joe Slovo, Akiva can speak for days about his personal relationships with some of the most interesting revolutionary leaders of the late twentieth century. It is not Akiva’s circle of friends rather his work on the ground in Israel/Palestine as a founding member of Matzpen which is most fascinating. Orr wrote Max Blumenthal and me an email this morning in reference to our latest piece about Israel’s tent protests. It is reprinted in full along with an interview Blumenthal and I did with Orr last summer regarding Israel’s wars as well as a youtube link to a full length documentary about Orr’s political party in Israel, Matzpen.
http://www.vimeo.com/19444809Your article on the “social-protest” is excellent. Full of factual data and ideological insights. I found it excellent and learnt facts I did not know. I fully agree with its content but I still consider this protest unique and politically important in Israeli politics. This is so due to my own political development. Let me explain.
I was politicized by my participation in the great Israeli seamen’s strike in 1951. By the way, a film about that strike was shown in Rothschild tents recently and I was asked to comment.
Until the seamen’s strike I was just an ordinary Israeli kid imbibing all the Zionist education without questioning it. I grew up in a non-political home, as a Tel Aviv ‘Beach Boy.’ I joined the “Hagannah” in 1945 when I entered High School. So did 25 of my other class mates out of which three joined Begin’s ETZEL and one joined the Stern Gang. The remaining six class mates joined nothing. Keep in mind that this was typical to all Jewish high schools at that time. In the “Hagannah” we did military training in summer holidays and fly-posted Tel Aviv streets with weekly at nights. We also participated in anti-British demos. We never did anything anti-Arab. I participated in “Hagannah” activity as a cog participates in a machine. I became platoon commander at 16 and trained 30 kids in drill and use of fire arms but we never fired a bullet (too expensive). All this sounds very political but I was totally a-political. I knew nothing about Marx, Lenin, or the USSR and could not tell the difference between the various Jewish political parties in Palestine. I detested all politics. It reeked of emotional blackmail.
I visited neighbouring Jaffa often as a kid and though it was 100% Arab it never occurred to me that the Arabs might oppose Jewish independence in Palestine. To me – and to most of my generation – the Arabs were part of the physical landscape like the mountains and the vegetation. We did not hate – or fear – them. It never occured to us that a lengthy military/political conflict with them is inevitable. It was simple: our enemy were the British who ruled us, not the “natives”.
Only during the 1951 seamen’s strike did I become politically critical because I read the various press reports about the strike. At that time most Israeli newspapers belonged to political parties. I read them and saw that most press reports were biased against the seamen, and distorted the real facts of the strike. Only one paper gave a factually accurate reporting – and supported the seamen.
It was the paper of the Communist Party (CP). So I joined that party knowing nothing about Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, or the USSR. It took another 2 years of CP membership before I became an anti-Zionist. In the CP, I met Palestinian comrades who were not “Uncle Tom’s” and when I sold the CP paper in Jerusalem (every Friday for 6 years), I encountered violent hostility and opposition that forced me to learn the facts about Capitalism and the Zionist-Palestinian conflict. The 1950s were the peak of the “Cold War” and anti-communism was rough and rampant. I acquired my political education not by books but by political confrontations. I firmly believe that political confrontations with adversaries is the best political education.
Now back to Rothschild tents. Most young people in the tents face their first political confrontation in those tents. Before July 14 they were just fodder in politics. Now they are becoming politically critical – and aware. Whatever the outcome of this unique protest – their minds and attitudes are changed and will stay so. They will not be political fodder again. Give them time and many will become anti-Zionist. One cannot be weaned in a week from what one embraced uncritically for many years at home, in nursery and school. This confrontation/protest changes their minds – and lives. Nothing similar ever happened in Israel before. Moreover, thanks to the mobile phones, Facebook, and the Internet, this protest is completely self-managed. No external organization hatched it or runs it. Massive Citizens’ self-organizing activity never existed in Israel before. This makes all political parties tremble. They know that this protest changed the rules of the political game in Israel. Israeli citizens cannot be treated as “election fodder” in the future. Whoever will treat them so will pay dearly at the ballot box.
My political activity aims to make the ballot box obsolete by direct participation of all citizens in all political decisions.
This protest is a “first small step” in that direction, and as Mao used to say: ”The longest journey starts with one small step.” Though I am not – and never was – a Maoist, I agree with him. That is why I support this protest despite all its drawbacks.
Keeping up the struggle – and enjoying it
Aki
August 31, 2011
11:50 pm
“I didn’t say if an Arab Jew is a Zionist, he is no longer an Arab.” [End of Palestinian]
Oh really, here is a quote from one of your more recent posts:
“Unfortunately , the majority of Jewish Arabs chose their “Zionist Jewish” identity over their original Jewish Arab identity.” [End of quote]
“so again you tried hard to discredit what I say , but as always you failed.” [End of Palestinian]
Nope, you are the one flipping back and forth like a hamburger on a frying pan.
“What the national language of a “state for all her inhabitants” would be ? easy , Arabic and Hebrew” [End of Palestinian]
See my response to Akiva (immediately above). No need to repeat myself here.
September 1, 2011
2:22 am
@MITCHELL COHEN Surely the language issue is not an insurmountable one? Israel by its very nature has a multilingual tradition does it not? 50 yrs ago there would have been a large section of Israeli society that spoke Arabic better than Hebrew (Jews from other middle-Eastern countries). Not so now of course but it is not an alien concept to Israel. You rightly say that Israelis that use Arab services (mechanics etc) communicate in Hebrew – sure, and no doubt this would continue. Hebrew would I’m sure be used as the lingua franca, as the language of the group which economically dominates is normally that which is adopted for commercial purposes. Palestinian’s response “easy , Arabic and Hebrew” is perfectly valid and he’s right, it is easy. I think there are many barriers to a one state solution, but language is certainly not one of them.
September 2, 2011
4:21 pm
@Bosko “In his heart of heart, our Palestinian knows that he is wrong it just does not suit him to admit it”. what a wonderfully infantile, cretinous comment. Ha ha! Until that point I thought I was reading an interesting debate between two vehemently opposed parties who nonetheless were willing to listen to the other. But in fact what you say is , ‘no-one can possibly disagree with my views. Even those that do know deep down that I am right and are simply deluding themselves’. You invalidate everything you have said elsewhere with such a pitiful, abject line of reasoning.
September 2, 2011
9:38 pm
@JONP
So I am cretinous for saying what I think Palestinian knows in his heart of hearts? I guess then that you tend to agree with HIS claims? Yo agree that …
.
- For the purposes of claiming all of Palestine for themselves, the Jews of Palestine were Arabs.
.
- But when it comes to persecution, hatred, and pogroms, Jews are ‘others’ who are non Arabs.
.
- and I guess you also believe that Palestinian Arabs are entitled to define themselves. Therefore, in order to lay claim to Palestine, they are Palestinians, not Arabs.
.
- On the other hand, Jews are not entitled to define themselves and even though most Jews are secular, non religious and some are even atheists, you insist that even those Jews are part of a religion rather than as an ethno cultural group. And that we are not entitled to define ourselves as we want.
.
Thank you Jonp for your opinion. I guess I accept that you consider me to be a cretin. But I promise you I won’t lose any sleep over it.
.
Good bye.
September 2, 2011
9:50 pm
The First dot point in my above post should have been …
.
- For the purpose of claiming ALL of Palestine for themselves, Arabs are allowed to pretend that the native Jews of Palestine were Arabs.
September 2, 2011
11:11 pm
BOSKO wrote
” Arabs are allowed to pretend that the native Jews of Palestine were Arabs.”
For the record,
Israel’s second president YTZHAK BEN-ZVI specialized in his earlier life in researching the origins of the Palestinian Arabs.
He used the locations of the Palestinian villages, and their names, comparing them to the locations and names of Jewish villages mentioned in the Bible.
Many are identical.
He also used the surnames of their inhabitants comparing them to ancient Jewish surnames.
HIs conclusion was that many – but not all – of
the Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the ancient Israelites, who were not exiled by the Romans after 70 C.E.
He explained that the Romans – after defeating the Jewish rebellion – exiled the Jewish cities’ elite – the clergy, political/social and culturaly prominent leaders – but not the simple folk from the countryside, the peasants.
After the Islamic conquest of Palestine in the 8th century most peasants converted to Islam as this allowed them to pay reduced taxes.
So many of todays Palestinian Arabs are the descendants of the ancient Israelites.
Ben-Gurion, who was a close friend of Ben-Zvi
mentioned this in his article “WE AND OUR NEIGHBOUS” he wrote in 1922.
B.G. agreed with B.Z.
So the Zionist Palestinian conflict is between Jews and ex-Jews.
Aki
September 3, 2011
12:12 am
@Aki
I have no problems with the possibility that some Palestinian Arabs may be descendants of ancient Hebrews. Just as I have no problems with the probability of many other Palestinian Arabs are descendants of Arab invaders of the 7th century. I am not the one who is arguing against the two state solution. Our Palestinian was the one who claimed that Palestine belongs in it’s entirety only to Arabs.
.
But what we were talking about with Palestinian is how to classify the Jews of Palestine who lived in Palestine for generations even before the Arab invasion of the 7th century. Our Palestinian insisted that all those Jews were Arabs. I however somehow feel that Jews are Jews. Unless of course they themselves insist that they don’t want to be Jews. But of course all of those native Jews of Palestine thought of themselves as Jews and at least some of them identified with the Zionists more than with their Arab neighbours. Even our Palestinian admitted to that and that’s the reason why he himself said that the Arabs instigated the 1929 Hebron massacre of Jews. Mind you, I don’t blame all of Hebron’s Arabs for it. Some of them were very decent and they saved their Jewish neighbours. But they were not in the majority otherwise the massacre would never have happened.
September 3, 2011
3:01 am
To BOSKO
I cannot see what does the debate about the distant past contribute to overcoming the obstacles to peace today.
According to research based on DNA all humans descended from ONE african female.
So what ?
Millions of the descendants of this single mother killed each other in WW1 and WW2.
If we look at Syria today genuine Syrians supporting Assad are killing other genuine Syrians opposing him – not due to different origins.
ALL POLITICAL CONFLICTS ORIGINATE FROM CURRENT ISSUES, NOT FROM REMOTE ONES.
What happened three generations ago still matters but what happened thirty generations ago ?
AKI
September 3, 2011
6:09 am
@Aki
So you really think that putting together, into ONE state, two peoples who have been fighting a bitter war against each other for nearly 100 years is a better answer than separating them into two states?
.
Just looking at other places where a similar solution was attempted, putting two historic enemies into ONE state, sooner or later things blew up. Just think of what happened in …
.
- The Balkans
- Rwanda
- Lebanon
- Sri Lanka
.
Is that the sort of thing that you would like to see happening in Israel too? I certainly wouldn’t.
September 3, 2011
7:15 pm
To Bosko
History is full of examples of ALL kinds
Those trying “To prove” the validity of their political view by quoting “proofs” from history merely reveal their own political aim.
Those seeking reconciliation of a conflict will quote examples of resolved conflicts.
Those unwilling to pay the price for resolving a current conflict will quote other examples to “prove” their points.
History proves nothing because it can be used to prove everything.
History “teaches” nothing because it is not a teacher but a collection of different facts from which fools choose “proofs” that justify their anxieties/aspirations/aims.
WHERE THERE IS A WILL THERE IS A WAY.
DO you have THE WILL to pay the price for resolving the Zionist-Palestinin conflict ?
AKI
September 3, 2011
7:47 pm
@Aki
Ok I do admit that you have a point about history. But equally, I believe in the saying …
.
“Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat those mistakes”
.
But you know what? Let’s just forget about history. Let me ask you a counter question about the ‘here and now’ …
.
DO you think Hamas and their many supporters have THE WILL to give up their ideology for the sake of resolving the Zionist-Palestinin conflict in a way that would not squash the minimum aspirations and interests of the majority of Jewish Israelis in the long term ?
September 4, 2011
12:29 am
To BOSKO
My answer to your last qyestion is: NO.
I think HAMAS – like all other religious fanatics (including Jewish, Christians, and Hindus – who assasinated Gandhi) see all other beliefs as abominations and aspire to impose theirs on all others. Religious extremists cannot resolve their conflicts.
But most Palestinians do NOT support HAMAS !
HAMAS success in the Gaza elections was a result of the corruption of FATAH.
GAZAns voted against FATAH corruption, not for HAMAS ISLAM.
Give HAMAS a while in power and they too will become corrupt – because ALL power corrupts.
Most West Bank Palestinians are anti-HAMAS.
If Israel and the settlers will stop robbing the Palestinian lands, and return what they robbed, many Palestinins would prefer to be Israeli citizens rather than FATAH citizens.
I live near 5 Palestinan towns (two have more than 30,000 inhabitants each).
They are all Israeli citizens and refuse to become citizens of a PLO state.
I have a good friend in Gaza a child-psychiatrist named Dr.Iyad Seraj.
In 1995 – after Arafat’s return to Gaza, a New-York TIMES journalist interviewed him about the change in daily life from Israeli occupation to Arafat’s rule.
IYAD said:” under Israeli occupation we had more civil rights than under Arafat. We could sue the governor in the High Court and win our case.” We cannot sue any PLO official.
When this was printed in N.Y.TIMES Arafat had him arrested. We organized an international campaign for his release – and won.
If ISRAEL were to become the state of all its inhabitants, rather than a “Jewish” State many Palestinians – fed up with ISLAM and corruption – would prefer to be Israeli citizens rather than PLO State citizens.
AKI
September 4, 2011
1:34 am
@Aki
I hear what you are saying. And I also accept that you are saying what you are saying based on some personal experience but I just don’t think that’s eneough. I say that, because like you, I am NOT religious and I believe in the scientific method, I don’t believe in something based on pure faith, simply because it makes me comfortable. So, to my mind, you put forward a hypothesis that if only Israel would turn into a bi-national state, this whole mess that we have in the Middle East would be resolved and Jews will get along with Arabs in a peaceful democratic society.
.
Now let’s just test this hypothesis of yours. Let’s just do a few conceptual tests.
.
1) Do we see any Arab society around us that treats it’s minorities with tolerance? I am not so sure. Are the Copts of Egypt happy with their lot? Are Iraqi Christians treated well? What about the turmoil between the Shiites and Sunnis? I won’t labour the point, I am sure that you get my drift. At the least there are tensions and at the worst, there are periodic eruptions.
.
2) What about looking at what is happening in Israel itself? Are we getting along with each other? Or are there resentments by both communities? Even if we would say it is always our fault which I for one would not say because I don’t believe in a black and white cartoon world with only goodies and baddies in it. But even then, I think that there is mistrust resentment and sometimes outright hatred between our communities. Personally, I would attribute the blame to human nature and BOTH sides are human.
.
3)What about our past? I won’t labour that one, I am sure that you would agree that both sides carry a lot of baggage.
.
4) What about the attitudes of both sides? Do you sense tolerance or supremacism? My very distinct impression is that for BOTH sides, the answer is a distinct NO to the first question and a YES to the second question. In other words, I don’t sense good will from either side.
.
So, you think that would be a good start for the bi- national state? Putting together roughly an equal number of Jewish and Arab citizens in one state, with all that baggage? Personally, I think it would represent a HUGE gamble. I deliberately said gamble, not risk. Because to take a calculated risk, sometimes makes sense but to gamble with our children’s lives is foolhardy particularly since there is a perfectly viable alternative solution, THE TWO STATE SOLUTION. What is wrong with that? At least for now?
September 4, 2011
1:05 pm
Dear BOSKO,
All your four questins are answered by today’s reality in South-Africa.
African reality in 1990 gave negative answers
to all your questions.
AND YET DESPITE THIS SOUTH-AFRICA TODAY FUNCTIONS WELL AS THE STATE OF ALL ITS INHABITANTS – with all the difficulties created by its past.
Many in S-A – and in the world – shared your convictions and anxieties in the 1960s and opposed the 1-state solution.
They insisted on a 2-states solution (for the reasons implied by the answers to your 4 questions):
One state for blacks, and one for whites.
It was presented as the “REALISTIC” solution, not as the “RACIST” solution.
But it meant institutionalizing, justifying, and consolidating, racial preference in politics.
Do you support this ?
Would you suggest to apply it in the USA where the relations between the races are far from amiable even today, and have a grim past ?
I don’t think you would.
I rejected a 2-State solution in S-A ever since 1960 (The Sharpville massacre).
I agreed with JOE SLOVO whom I met later in London (our daughters attended the same High School)..who also insisted on the 1-state solution.
Why should ethnic differences be treated unlike racial differences ?
If you reject a state based on race why do you insist on a state based on ethnicity ?
I oppose the 2-state solution in Palestine because it justifies, consolidates, and institutionalized politics based on ethnicity.
As I wrote earlier, I am anthropocentrist, not an ethnocentrist. I strive to promote a political system that treats all its citizens EQUALLY – despite all differences between them.
You pose as a “Realist” but are actually an ethnocentrist.
You want a State based on ethicity but use arguments to present it as a “Realistic” solution.
OK. So be it.
Each of us has his principles.
However, I don’t insist on imposing a 1-state solution if both ethnic majorities oppose it.
If a 2-State solution is accepted by majorities on both sides, I shall regret it, and promote my aim to change it, but I shall accept it reluctantly – temporarily.
However, Israel opposes the 2-state solution ever Ben-Gurion’s time to the present.
Likud leaders were loyal to their anthem:
“TWO BANKS HAS THH RIVER JORDAN,
ONE IS OURS,THE OTHER ONE TOO”
They feel they already sacrificed their principles by giving up the EAST BANK …
As for Labour – PERES, SHARON (yes he was a product of LABOUR…) both ardent BG disciples kept insisting on the “JORDANIAN OPTION”.
PERES meant a WEST BANK ruled by Jordan.
SHARON declared
” TRANS-JORDAN IS THE PALESTINIAN’S STATE”
So as far as Israeli politics since the secret 1948 pact between B.G. and King Abdallah of TRANS-JORDAN, are concerned, the 2-state solution is NOT an option.
ALL ISRAELI LEADERS are terrified by the possibility that in two weeks time the UN will recognize the Palestinians in Gaza and the West-Bank as an independent state.
This provids an insight into their guiding principles ever since 1948.
They always were – and still are – promoting their self-image of “THE ETERNAL VICTIM” but nowadays they are exposed as the victimizer.
Some act.
Despicable.
AKI
September 4, 2011
2:31 pm
@Aki
For your South Africa example I can bring up Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) as a counter example.
.
As for South Africa itself, while I am happy about the fact that the Apartheid system came to an end over there, I don’t agree with you that what replaced it is the outstanding success that you claim it to be. In fact, it would not surprise me if it would end up heading in the same direction as Zimbabwe down the track. Mandela was an exceptional man but there are not too many like him amongst us humans. And in my opinion, it is his legacy that South Africa was initially heading in the right direction. The current South African leaders are nothing like him and I fear for the future ones even more.
.
I don’t want Israel making the same mistake. You can call my attitude ethno centric if you want. But I’ll respond to you that my attitude was shaped by OUR history. I hope I don’t have to labour that history to you, given that your parents were fugitives from Nazi Germany. You might also note that there are also many Jews in Israel who are descendants of fugitives from Arab countries. What is the common thread? It is that when we were minorities amongst others, we were treated like the proverbial sh$&@t. So, I for one will do everything in my power to ensure that at least in one place on this earth we will never be in the minority again. Call it the victim mentality if you want. But I would rather call it preventing the conditions that made us victims for 2000 years.
September 7, 2011
4:20 am
@bosko I don’t necessarily agree with everything Palestinian has written. Neither do I consider you a cretin, but I think the comment was cretinous. In fact I see you are entirely reasonable in most of your arguments. i enjoyed reading your debate with Aki because both of you present persuasive lines of argument. however if you were to suddenly add a retort along the lines of ‘in his heart of hearts Aki knows he is wrong and doesn’t want to admit it’ I would feel that all your reasonable arguments were obliterated in an instant. That’s all I’m saying.
September 7, 2011
5:52 am
@JONP
Fair enough.
September 8, 2011
11:45 am
Dear Bosko,
Minorities (ethnic/religious/tribal, et.al.) were – and still are – persecuted in many societies.
You propose to avoid this evil by abolishing one’s minority status. YOu say:
Let the minority create a state where it shall be a majority and this wiill alleviate ITS persecution.
This will not terminate minority persecution.
It only turns persecuted into persecuter.
Ask the Palestinians who already have Israeli citizenship (there are 1.5 M of them.
Your recipe -a standard ethno-centric recipe- was what Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, proposed. He wrote that he “understands anti-Semitism”.
He accepted it as an incurable evil.
I challenge his conception – and yours.
All human discriminatory practice (and theory) is a human creation and can be abolished.
Act to abolish evil, not to live with it.
AKI
September 17, 2011
3:28 pm
@Akiva, you say …
.
“This will not terminate minority persecution.
It only turns persecuted into persecuter”
.
I don’t necessarily agree. But even if you are right because the old majority resents the fact that the old minority (Jews) had the temerity to do something about our 2000 years of plight, the old majority (Arabs) wage 100 years of war and the Jews don’t take it lying down. Even then, if there has to be persecution (which I would rather not have), even then if it has to be, then I would rather be the persecutor for a change than the persecuted. Especially since I know that if I wouldn’t do it, they would still be most happy to do it to me if they could. And some of them (the Hamasnik types, who are many) would gladly finish the job that the Nazis started (remember the Nazis? They are the ones from whom your parents escaped).
.
You also say …
.
“All human discriminatory practice (and theory) is a human creation and can be abolished. Act to abolish evil, not to live with it”
.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I disagree with you that we would be better positioned to fight this eveil as a persecuted minority. I think we have a better chance to fight it by being a majority in our own country who are generous to our minorities. We should strive to show our former persecutors that we are more generous and that we are able to treat our minorities well. Lead by example. Have we been successful to date? I would say, not totally but even you admitted in some of your earlier posts that we have been at least partially more successful. Do we have to try even harder? Of course. But you must admit that it’s not easy to make progress in the midst of this nationalistic hatred that they, the Arabs, too are whipping up at least as much as our side does. Personally, I think they are better at it than we are. But of course you will call me ethnocentric for claiming that. Pity …
September 18, 2011
11:15 am
Dear Bosko
You wrote: “The old majority (Arabs) wage 100 years of war and the Jews don’t take it lying down”
Why is Arab majority at war with ZIONISM ?
Please state YOUR answer.
Now let me state mine:
Modern time Jewish immigration to Palestine started in the 1887 with the Rothschild settlers. (Herzl’s Zionism began in 1897)
The Palestinian Arabs wellcome Rothschilders.
Why ?
because they brought money, new places of employment to Arabs, and being non-Zionist
(as Rothschild told Herzl – rejecting his request for financial support)they did not feel politically threatened by them.
The conflict began with the “Second wave” of Zionist immigration, after the failure of the 1905 revolution in Russia).
These new (Ethnocentric) “Socialists” insisted that Jewish employers MUST employ only Jewish workers and began a 10-year campaign of “KIBBUSH HA’AVODA” (“Conquest of labour”). They threatened Rothschild settlers and beat up their Arab employees.
How ought the Palestinians to respond?
by wellcoming such “socialists” with flowers?
Moreover, these “Socialists” (who later founded communal sttlements – “Kibbutzim” – that refused to accept Arab members…) openly declared their aim – to turn Palestine into a JEWISH STATE even while they were only 10% of the population, and mostly new immigrants, while the 90% Palestinian Arab population lived in 800 villages and a dozen towns they populated CONTINOUSLY for over 1000 years.
How ought the Palestinians to respond?
If you were a Palestinian how would YOU respond to this ?
Please spare me the use the adjective “Tragic” in your reply.
Later, in 1948, Ben-Gurion robbed the Palestinians even of the 50% of Palestine that the UN Partition resolution of Nov.29.1947 recognized as their state.
He and Emir Abdallah of Trans-Jordan made a secret pact dividing the Arab part of Palestine between them….
As a result those who inhabited Palestine continously for over 1000 years did not get 50% of the land they lived in.
They got 0% !!!
Ben-Gurion got 75%, Abdallah – 25%.
Later, in 1955 President Nasser of Egypt told the entire world (in the BANDUNG confrence) he will make peace with Israel if it obeys the UN PARTITION RESOLUTION of 1947 and lets the Palestinians set up their State.
Ben-Gurion rejected Nasser’s offer.
Still later – in 2003 – most Arab state voted in the “Arab League” for a resolution offering Israel peace if it lets the Palestinians set up a state in the pre-1967 armistice lines (i.e. in 27% of Palestine)
Israel’s PM SHARON rejected this peace offer.
Now the Palestinians ask the UN to recognize them as a state even without boundaries.
But Netanyahu’s government vehemently opposes this.
If YOU were a Palestinian how would YOU respond to the persistent annexationist-exclusivist Zionist policy ???
Aki ORR
September 18, 2011
5:34 pm
@Akiva, you ask …
.
“Why is Arab majority at war with ZIONISM ?
Please state YOUR answer”
.
Because they don’t want a non Arab, non Muslim independent entity in the Middle East because they consider the entire Middle East to be Arab land.
.
Now let me ask you a question, dear Akiva. Don’t you think that is ethno centric of the Arabs? If you are so much against ethno centrism, why aren’t you equally against THEIR ethno centrism?
.
I think the difference between us, Akiva, is that I count myself amongst those who accept the teachings of one of our old sages, Rabbi Hillel who lived 2000 years ago. He said …
.
“If I am not for me, then who is for me? And if I am only for me, then who am I?
.
I think that short sentence beatifully sums up the both the humanity behind that sentence but which at the same time expresses the need to have self respect. Which you simplify to be ethno centrism. Have it your way, I am happy to be referred to as ethno centric as long as you mean it to be Rabbi Hillel’s kind of ethno centrism. Yes, I am proud of our culture, proud of the fact that we have teachers like Hillel and proud of our ability to have survived and thrive, as a people despite all odds. Are we perfect? No. But then, no one else is. That’s why we have as much right to survive as a people as anyone else. What do you think Akiva? I suspect you don’t agree and I suspect that you don’t agree because you are one of those ex Jews who renounced your people because you found us to be less than the perfection that you demand of us. A bit like everyone else, we are human. But you are prepared to forgive them but not us.
.
As for your peace with Egypt stories. Please spare me. We supposedly had peace with them since Sadat made his peace with us 30 years ago. We gave up a lot for that peace and I don’t regret that. But let’s now put it into perspective. That peace is about to unravel because the Arabs have never been good at keeping their word. They got Sinai back and now their new leaders are openly saying that the peace agreements are not sacred. Why? Because many of them still did not give up on their old objective to destroy and dismantle Israel and to replace it by another Arab Muslim state
September 19, 2011
3:12 am
By the way, dear Akiva. You are being a bit simplistic with your percentages of Palestine. You neglected to mention that before 1921, the province of Palestine consisted of East Palestine, which is now known as Jordan, as well as West Palestine which is today’s Israel and the West Bank. In 1921, the Brits handed over East Palestine which represented about 80% of total Palestine, to the Hashemite Arabs who numbered about 200,000 people at that time. And last time I checked, the Hashemites were Arabs NOT Jews. Which means that later on, in 1947, the remainder of Palestine 20% of it, was to be divided between Arabs and Jews. According to the UN partition plan, the Jews were going to get 55% of 20% which is about 13% of the original Palestine. And by then, the Jews represented about 33% of the population of Palestine. So I wouldn’t labour the point that the Jews got more than they were entitled to. Especially since about 50% of the 13% of the allocated land was the Negev desert.
If despite all that, you side with the Palestinians and agree with them that they were right to try and deny the Jews any of the land, then let me remind you that prior to 1947 neither the Arabs nor the Jews had sovereignity over the land for hundreds of years. But since both people lived there for many generations and both peoples had migrant components (even though Jewish migrants were probably a higher number), a fair division of the land between the two peoples was the just solution in 1947. You don’t agree? And you don’t blame the Arabs for trying to take it all for themselves by force of arms? Then let me ask you a question, dear Akiva, did you expect the Jews not to fight back?