Palestine: The newest UN Observer STATE

[Zunaid]

Originally Posted by Sohel
^Israel also supported us despite US objections and was one of the first countries to recognize us.

Well part of the problem had been the Arabs themselves - had they not been hell-bent on driving the Israelis into the sea and blowing up buses with children in them, they could have won the moral war a long time ago the quite possibly had made better traction on war for the hearts and minds in the US. Let's face it as long as Israel is giving almost free reign and token slaps by my new country - they don;t really feel any compulsion to act. Add to the mix, the temporary demographic imbalance by the more intransigent and extreme immigrants from Eastern Europe the hawks have the sway. But the long term demographic clock is ticking - both in the middle east and in the US and the end is inevitable. The only question is, how many more generations of Palestinians will be suffering in virtual jails in their own land.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Well part of the problem had been the Arabs themselves - had they not been hell-bent on driving the Israelis into the sea and blowing up buses with children in them, they could have won the moral war a long time ago the quite possibly had made better traction on war for the hearts and minds in the US. Let's face it as long as Israel is giving almost free reign and token slaps by my new country - they don;t really feel any compulsion to act. Add to the mix, the temporary demographic imbalance by the more intransigent and extreme immigrants from Eastern Europe the hawks have the sway. But the long term demographic clock is ticking - both in the middle east and in the US and the end is inevitable. The only question is, how many more generations of Palestinians will be suffering in virtual jails in their own land.

The solution from a lobbying standpoint is greater involvement of American Jews and specifically Palestinian Americans in a cohesive effort to advocate peace and a 2 state solution in the region, and educating the American public, in an American accent, as to how something like that would actually help the greater American interest in the region and beyond.

Sadly, many liberal American Jews and most American Jews are very liberal, are reluctant to stand up to Israeli aggression in public. They don't want to be branded as some sort of "traitors" by the hawkish and loudmouthed minority within the community.

Had the Palestinian movement been a completely non-violent one like the American Civil Rights Movement, the hawks would have had no excuse to advocate, maintain and enhance Israeli aggression.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
Self affirmation. A people that has received nothing for a long while, even this bit is psychologically elevating. It is good to feel good about yourself.

Ditto.

On the other hand, Israel has explicitly taken a giant sh*t on every single UN ruling, ever. So they don't take this seriously.

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Sohel
^Israel also supported us despite US objections and was one of the first countries to recognize us.

That is very interesting to know! Do you have a source for that?

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by Zunaid
We should remember their support for our independence when most of the Arab world supported Pakistan. Published on 21st August, 1971 - this rare clipping is being shared on FB.

Thanks for this, Doc. This was quite touching to read.

[NoName]

Originally Posted by Sohel
^Israel also supported us despite US objections and was one of the first countries to recognize us.

Yet we don't recognize them lol.

[Sohel]

Israel recognized Bangladesh on February 4th, 1972. Here's an interesting article.

On the subject of Bangladesh recognizing Israel, here's what I think. I think we're constitutionally mandated to pursue global peace and as such must constructively engage all parties involved in a conflict. Besides, I have no issues recognizing a state the PLO, many key Arab states and Turkey also recognize while I have embassies in other countries oppressing at least a segment of their population.

I am embarrassed by that kind of high and mighty hypocrisy and false concern for human rights, especially when poor people in Bangladesh find it pretty much impossible exercise their rights and are subsequently victimized by a corrupt state and its organs.

[NoName]

Bangladesh can still be outspoken critic of Israel while maintaining relations with Israel. Honestly we have no reason not to pursue relations with Israel, it would benefit us a lot.

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Sohel
.....
Had the Palestinian movement been a completely non-violent one like the American Civil Rights Movement, the hawks would have no excuse to advocate, maintain and enhance Israeli aggression.

I don't think that's a practical assumption, we know American foreign policy is completely un democratic and only driven by self interest in the rest of the world. And when it comes to Israel, I don't need to repeat US position there since post WW-II- So assuming that a civil right movement kind of movement in Palestine would bring them better result, is very naive to say the least. A non violent Palestine would by now be completely non existent and engulfed by Israel. It's due to resistance that Palestine has a little bit of land and Jerusalem still left on their side.

If someone says today, that a non-violent liberation movement in East Pakistan would have saved 3 million lives and could have benefitted Bangladesh in terms of wealth sharing etc and we could have avoided losing millions of lives in post war Bangladesh. I don't think it would be accepted by anyone who witnessed that political situation in pre war period.

We can preach peace and look great, but can only realize the truth when we are on the wrong side of a conflict. Like we understand our war in 71, they do theirs too. Nobody gets into a war by choice. And their loss and threat was much bigger than we had in 71. Sohel Bhai, that's a very unrealistic thing to say, I'm sure you understand that, as your other posts in this thread suggest.

[Sohel]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
I don't think that's a practical assumption, we know American foreign policy is completely un democratic and only driven by self interest in the rest of the world. And when it comes to Israel, I don't need to repeat US position there since post WW-II- So assuming that a civil right movement kind of movement in Palestine would bring them better result, is very naive to say the least. A non violent Palestine would by now be completely non existent and engulfed by Israel. It's due to resistance that Palestine has a little bit of land and Jerusalem still left on their side.

Go back to my first post here and then follow my conversation with Zunaid to better understand the context under which I suggested non-violent resistance. I believe NVR can weaken AIPAC and the hawks and warmongers who benefit from the status quo politically, negate the same old excuses that unfortunately work well for them amongst some otherwise liberal American Jews and Western powers, and therefore benefit the Palestinian lobby in the US advocating a 2 state solution more powerful.

American foreign policy responds to American, not the world's public opinion. This is called sovereignty for any nation, let alone a superpower like the USA. American policy, both foreign and domestic, is also influenced by powerful and effective lobbies who manipulate public opinion and American lawmakers whenever possible. Whining about "driven by self interest?" Whose isn't? And you have the indecency to call me naive?

American democracy is complex and not nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound to be. I doubt that anyone can truly understand that complexity without living there and taking an active interest in the political process that defines itself as a perpetually ongoing project to do better, even when one has been living in the paragon of democracy and freedom known as the UAE.

A non violent resistance movement in Palestine, similar to the one in the West Bank, would deplete AIPAC and the warmongers they represent of the excuses that actually work for them.That would create the opportunity to create a much more effective Palestinian lobby advocating a 2 state solution to effectively counter AIPAC.

This will also get many liberal American Jews, 70%+ according to many polls, to openly support the 2 state solution which will further strengthen the Palestinian lobby, and generate more American public opinion in its favor. The US will begin to do the right things with regards to Israeli aggression only when that happens.

If you want to see America effectively put pressure on Israel to do the right thing, there is no guarantee that it'll work as much as so many pathologically anti-American loudmouths ironically fantasize about, that is pretty much the only realistic option.

If someone says today, that a non-violent liberation movement in East Pakistan would have saved 3 million lives and could have benefitted Bangladesh in terms of wealth sharing etc and we could have avoided losing millions of lives in post war Bangladesh. I don't think it would be accepted by anyone who witnessed that political situation in pre war period.

Purely argumentative conflation and false analogy here from a military perspective. Our liberation movement had three major advantages which made a successful military campaign possible: 1) geographical distance from the enemy; 2) active and unmitigated military support from our neighbor who sheltered our refugees, and provided safe haven, arms, training and intel to our fighters while severely clogging up enemy reinforcements; and 3) our subtropical, mostly rural terrain with very little modern infrastructure that could enable the enemy, not used to our Monsoon, to effectively penetrate the interior and defeat our guerilla fighters with their mechanized infantry and short range artillery.

That is clearly not the case with the Palestinians, making them militarily vulnerable to a far superior enemy and subsequently their making admirable armed resistance pretty much futile in itself as a military campaign. However, sustained armed resistance focused on military targets, tough on both sides of the fence, can play an important part in bringing about a negotiated settlement with an adversary negotiating from a position of superior power and pretty much dictating terms.

Our armed resistance in self defense began at the onset of deliberate genocide, AFTER we had bent over backwards as citizens of Pakistan for a just peace and overwhelmingly won an election. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel, I'm not including Arab Israelis here (Bedouin, Non Bedouin, Circassians and Druze), and do not have the civil and political rights and recourse Israelis do. Their land has been conquered and they have become an occupied people. Israel, as the occupying force has certain obligations they do not give a damn about, and are hellbent on stealing land through illegal settlements. Different scenario. Different military options. Different possible outcome for armed engagement against an exponentially superior force.

We can preach peace and look great, but can only realize the truth when we are on the wrong side of a conflict. Like we understand our war in 71, they do theirs too. Nobody gets into a war by choice. And their loss and threat was much bigger than we had in 71. Sohel Bhai, that's a very unrealistic thing to say, I'm sure you understand that, as your other posts in this thread suggest.

I'm amused but not surprised that you're calling my assertion unrealistic when what you advocate has gotten the Palestinian people no closer to sustainable freedom. BTW, our loss in light of what the Pakistan Army and their Islamist buddies did in 9 months would've been far worse had they succeeded in their mission to preserve their national unity and that of the Ummah through genocide, brigandage and mass rape as the means of ethnic and spiritual cleansing. We won and the Palestinians haven't yet, I not only resent your bizarre comparison of the two, but find the underlined statement to be both anti-historical and morally repugnant.

I've been to Israel and the camps a few times as an Amnesty International observer and as a member of the California Democratic Party representing Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. I worked for the latter's senatorial campaign. I have some first hand knowledge as to what goes on there.

The reality of their ineffective armed struggle, while heroic in many cases when not directed at Israeli civilians, has created nothing but additional pain and suffering for their people, and didn't mitigate Israeli aggression in any way. As a matter of fact, such actions only provoke disproportionate response and outright aggression from the expansionist element just waiting for it. That's why Al Fatah and the PLO has abandoned that course of action. Hamas hasn't. Until and unless they do, their people in Gaza will continue to be victimized by far more severe Israeli military aggression than their compatriots in the West Bank.

The US has persistently opposed the illegal settlements being built in the occupied West Bank, but will not be able to apply effective pressure without overwhelmingly favorable American public opinion in general, and the that of the Jewish American community in particular, driving an effective Palestinian lobby advocating a 2 state solution based on pre-1967 borders.

There would be NO sustainable peace there without that all important first step in a series of incremental steps that may eventually result in a single democratic state that protects the rights of every individual and community who elect people according to their merit alone, perhaps a century or two later.

[zsayeed]

Originally Posted by Sohel
^Israel also supported us despite US objections and was one of the first countries to recognize us.

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
That is very interesting to know! Do you have a source for that?

February 1972
http://www.bcstest.com/bdesh_details...o%20Bangladesh

[Sohel]

^Good dig dude

[BANFAN]

@Sohel....
I think you have taken it in the wrong direction....

Your msg I quoted was:

Originally Posted by Sohel
.....
Had the Palestinian movement been a completely non-violent one like the American Civil Rights Movement, the hawks would have no excuse to advocate, maintain and enhance Israeli aggression.

The Palestinian resistance started in 1948 after Establishment of Israel and that was the time, they had to decide if it will be violent/non violent movement. When I compared to our liberation war, we decided to go violent on or around 26th March 1971, so the events leading to that point of time is what I compare between the two. There can never be a comparison between how the events have gone after the violent protest has started, due to geo-political differences and many other internal/external factors. So now if you re-read my post keeping in mind above premise, it may mean different.

US people and the world at large has been actually educated on what's actually happening in Palestine, after the first Gulf war onwards. Because that's the first time that CNN and he western media started covering wars in real time. Until then, western common people hardly had the real picture of events in Palestine.

I don't want to comment on your knowledge of Israel....I had my opinions through visiting Palestine as part of UN humanitarian mission. I know their part of the story as well.. Yes, had the conflict started in 1990 where there was adequate media coverage for the people of the world to know what's happening, a non violent protest could have yielded a faster result. But better or not, that would depend on the intent of the western and American government, but given the history, a Palestinian will always have a genuine ground to say that; justice would always be in favor of Israel. But still that would remain to be a viable option.

[Electrequiem]

And the repercussions from Israel begin:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...ew-settlements

Witholding tax revenue of about $130 million, and approval of settlements in land sites CRITICAL to the peace process and a future Palestinian state ... Israel is a CHILD. A petulant child.

[Electrequiem]

Also - to add to the discussion - the Arab violence in response to Israel's creation has not ALWAYS been reactionary. At the onset of the conflict, the Arabs were a little overzealous in their aggression.

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
Also - to add to the discussion - the Arab violence in response to Israel's creation has not ALWAYS been reactionary. At the onset of the conflict, the Arabs were a little overzealous in their aggression.

After Palestinian land has been taken by force for the creation of Israel and continuous settlement expansion .... Still israel needed to do some atrocities for the Palestinians act to be termed reactionary ?? And do you exactly mean by their actions to be "Overzealous in their aggression" ?

[Electrequiem]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
After Palestinian land has been taken by force for the creation of Israel and continuous settlement expansion .... Still israel needed to do some atrocities for the Palestinians act to be termed reactionary ?? And do you exactly mean by their actions to be "Overzealous in their aggression" ?

The early history of this conflict is not as black/white as you make it out to be. History there doesn't start at 1948. Even before the partioning of the lands, there was powerful presence of anti-Semitism in the Palestinian lands (The Hebron Massacre in the 1920s, destruction of synagogues, general mistreatment of the Jewish immigrants from Russia/East-Europe, etc). These sorts of aggression only soured the relationship that ratcheted up in intensity since 1948. By no means am I saying that it's all the Arabs' fault - but that ek hathe tali baje na. But since 1967, Israel has let their power and backing by powerful friends get to their heads. They have been trodding on a path of arrogance ever since.

[BANFAN]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
The early history of this conflict is not as black/white as you make it out to be. History there doesn't start at 1948. Even before the partioning of the lands, there was powerful presence of anti-Semitism in the Palestinian lands (The Hebron Massacre in the 1920s, destruction of synagogues, general mistreatment of the Jewish immigrants from Russia/East-Europe, etc). These sorts of aggression only soured the relationship that ratcheted up in intensity since 1948. By no means am I saying that it's all the Arabs' fault - but that ek hathe tali baje na. But since 1967, Israel has let their power and backing by powerful friends get to their heads. They have been trodding on a path of arrogance ever since.

Ok the second question is clear. But since your statement says "in response to Israel's creation" ... That's why I said that...it's quiet black/white after that isn't it? Well in relation to reactionary statement....

Originally Posted by Electrequiem: Also - to add to the discussion - the Arab violence in response to Israel's creation has not ALWAYS been reactionary. ....

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by Electrequiem
But since 1967, Israel has let their power and backing by powerful friends get to their heads. They have been trodding on a path of arrogance ever since.

The way I see it, if Israel was originally the victim [of the Arabs], they'd be morally if not legally justified to trod the path of arrogance and disregard for the Palestinians.

There quite a few examples that can be cited to show just how unfair the bulk of the conversation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. I myself have gone full circle in this regard. Until going off to college I had been quite staunchly pro-Palestinian. Then for a period of several years I was either enlightened to the point of naivete or just delusional but I believed that Israel genuinely wanted peace and while I was still very pro-Palestinian I had very favorable views about Israel that can be evidenced from old BC threads (New Peace Proposal, Discussion of ME Conflict Origins with Arnab). But over the last couple of years, I'm not sure Israel wants peace. There may be some polls that show that about half of Israelis believe in a two-state solution, but this is something that is not a priority for them. Israel already enjoys every advantage including virtual peace. You probably have a better chance of winning the Powerball than getting hit by a Hamas rocket. There are millions of Americans in the hood who would love to live in a city as safe as Sderot. So I've gone from being very critical of Israel to being moderately critical and now back to being very critical again.

The basic thing, and very few on BC would argue against this so this isn't really as much of a debate point here, is that the Palestinians are basically being made to pay for the crimes of anti-Semitic Europe. The Arabs have been made the scapegoat.

Here are a number of analogous situations and how people would react to it:

1) Most Americans are pretty staunch in their support for Israel. However, if you turned the tables, I'd imagine most of them would be furious. Native Americans and Black Americans have been historically ill-treated up to and including genocide, theft, slavery, discrimination, and psychological harm. If this was not true we wouldn't have black history month or learn about the Trail of Tears or even celebrate Thanksgiving. So now imagine taking a tiny piece of land like, relatively devoid of natural resources like New Jersey and forcing all non Indians and non African Americans out. How would that go down in America? Well, thats exactly how Palestinians feel.

2) Gypsies fled from India voluntarily/under coercsion about 1000 years ago. They were ridiculed and marginalized in Europe worse than any Jews - who actually integrated well and flourished by and large. They were also systematically murdered during the Holocaust. What if we decided to take a tiny part of a large country like India, say Goa or Haryana and force everyone out and put the Gypsies there and create a new country called Romanistan. How would Indians feel about it? Do you think Delhi would accept it if the UN mandated it and every country voted yes? Of course not.

3) There may be more than just empty air fueling Muslim conspiracy theorists...South Sudan and East Timor got independence much easier and quicker than did Palestine, while the list of Muslim failures (Palestine, Burma, Thailand, Phillipines, Chechnya, Dagestan) number more than successes (Pakistan/Bangladesh). Bosnia and Kosovo are only half successes because Yugoslavia burst into 7 countries of which Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Macedonia are Christian.