Did Barak's offer at Camp David affect you view of the Mideast conflict?

[Sirotnikov]

Why I had given up hope

An Intellectual Leader and Veteran of Israel's Left and Peace Camp: 'Arafat is an Arch-Liar, an Arch-Murderer'

Haim Shur is a well-known intellectual leader and veteran of Israel's peace camp. He is the former Editor of Israel's Socialist Party ("Mapam") daily "Al Ha'mishmar," and "The New Outlook," the English journal of Israel's Left which called for a dialogue with the PLO and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state before anyone else did, during the 1980s. In a comprehensive interview with Ma'ariv, Shur claimed that the Palestinians deceived and manipulated Israel's peace camp. He stated he has recently come to realize that the entire peace process was a part of the Palestinian phased plan to destroy Israel, admitted he believes the Israeli Left was misleading the Israeli public, and that there are no chances for peace in the near future. Following are excerpts from Shur's interview:[1]

"During the last few years, 75 year-old Shur is witnessing the ideals which shaped his life and thoughts crumbling down one after the other right in front of his own eyes: the Ha'Shomer-Ha'tzair [pioneer Israeli Socialist youth movement], the Kibbutz [the Israeli Socialist farming community], Socialism, the Left, and the brotherhood of nations. The last few months produced another painful disillusionment; Shur…is feeling deceived."

"[Shur said:] the Palestinians deceived me personally and the entire Israeli Left as well. They lied to us, they scammed us, maneuvered and manipulated us. Personally, I will never forgive them for this. My respect for Yossi Beilin is severely damaged when he says that he had already concluded with them a mutually accepted formula on the refugee issue, because if he is still incapable of ascertaining what is going on here than he is not really a man of the Left. A genuine man of the Left is a man who should accept the reality for what it is, and not see it the way he wishes to. The Palestinians are not yet ripe for peace, and my duty as a man of the Left is to realize this truth. The Left is not a synonym for deceit."

Q: "In what way did the Palestinians deceive you personally?"

A: "I had countless meetings with Palestinians. If someone conducted a study on the top ten Israelis who visited Palestinians most frequently I am sure I would be among them. [I met with Palestinians] more frequently than Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, and Ron Pundak did. During all of my meetings with them, the Palestinians said that we will find a mutually accepted formula regarding the right of return, but the truth is that this never happened."

Q: "What do you mean by that?"

A: "They never tried to reach a mutually accepted formula. Everything they said was just a part of the phased plan. I was one of those who opened the American doors for the PLO. When we organized an Israeli-Palestinian conference in Washington in 1987, the State Department refused to give them entry visas. We took it upon ourselves [to take care of all the necessary details] so that they could get the visas. And then they entered the U.S. and took it by storm with our assistance. This is what they wanted, that was the target, to capture the good will of the American Jewish Left. I personally invited them to social gatherings at the homes of Jewish Americans. Their success was owed to our help. Without out our assistance they would never succeed."

Q: "Was that a mistake?"

A: "Not only that this was a mistake, but merely two or three years following [our meetings with the Palestinians in the U.S.] Nabil Sha'ath appeared in front of an audience in Gaza and told them that [their meetings with us] were just a tactical move. [Sha'ath explained to his audience in Gaza that] the Palestinian plan is to make piecemeal gains for the ultimate goal of conquering the entire State of Israel. It became clear to me that the speeches made by Nabil Sha'ath – the same person who was my best friend in America and who came to hug me and kiss me following my pro-peace speeches - were worthless. He did not mean anything he said."

Q: "Does this lack of trust represent a shift for a man of the Left such as yourself?"

A: "There is one thing that no one will ever be able to take away from me, and that is my [commitment to the] truth. It enrages me when I see my friends from the [Labor] party, including the young generation, going to Gaza to greet Yasser Arafat. After all, he is an arch-liar, an arch-murderer. All along I argued that one makes peace with the enemy, but this is conditioned upon the enemy's willingness to make peace as well. If they continue their enemy-type nature, including their murderous acts, than I am not going [to approach them] as a friend. I do not think that Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin, Abshalom Vilan, and Anat Ma'or have business in having any contacts [now] with Yasser Arafat. If anyone ought to do it at all, it should only be the government."

Q: "When you said 'they deceived me,' did you refer to all of them? "

A: "I referred to an entire group of people, who do not care about anyone or anything, who deceived me. The fact that Nabil Sha'ath is an opportunist is clear to me. The fact that Ziad Abu-Ziyad is an opportunist is also clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether Hanna Seniora is also one? It is not clear to me. [The answer to the question] whether these professors I met in the U.S. are the same? That I don't know. I don't know if they disagree with Yasser Arafat; I do know I have never heard them [say it]."

Q: "The Israeli Right is blaming the Left for misleading the nation, for orchestrating some kind of a messianic peace movement. Do you accept the charges?"

A: "To a certain degree, yes. We wished for peace so much that we ended up turning our wishes into factual reality. However, there is not going to be peace, not next year and not five years from now. I am not abandoning the path of peace. However, I also refuse to abandon my people and my right to live. However, with the same fervor which I use to speak against the Palestinians I also speak against them."

Q: "Against whom? The Israeli Right?"

A: "Against the settlements which will cause our downfall. Why in the world do they [i.e., the Israeli government] impose on [the Palestinians] the settlement of Ariel in the middle of their territories? Would we accept it if they had built their own Ariel where Netanya is? First, I must be true to myself; I must make sure that my conscience is clear. I am going to take what I deserve even if they do not want to give it to me. But I do not want to take more than what I deserve. [At the same time,] it is very painful to me when they hurt the settlers…"

---

[1] Ma'ariv, June 22, 2001.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You've overspammed the thread, killing it. What did this poor little thread ever do to you, you big meanie.

I found a new resouce of articles.


This time, anytime anyone says something to me that I have evidence for, I just bump this thread.


Anyway, I read all these articles, and more.

If we're going to have same level discussions you should read them as well.

[chequita guevara]

Not only have I been reading them, but I've been suggesting to others to come look at it.

[Sirotnikov]

Che : thanks

It's nice to know someone else takes this seriosuly.

I've been reading such articles all last few months.

THat's why I lost hope...


bah

If only the ME was filled with people like you

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
If only the ME was filled with people like you

Then the United Arab and Jewish Socialist Workers Republic would help bring the world to peace.

[Jules]

Question:
Was there any realistic chance that Israel would have approved the concessions made by Barak at Camp David? I'm not sure exactly how this is done in Israel; here in the US the Senate must ratify all treaties. Is it likewise with the Knesset?

At any rate, if the political will within Israel to support Barak's concessions was absent, it seems to me that the offer made at Camp David was an empty gesture which Barak could never have hoped to deliver upon to the Palestinians. Still, it would have looked good for Arafat to have at least accepted.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Then the United Arab and Jewish Socialist Workers Republic would help bring the world to peace.

Now you see - that is what Zionism was all about.

If you go to a flag encyclopedia site, you'd see that some 7 different israeli flags proposed were red and had classic communist features to them.

Zionists thought that there would be an arab minority/majority in israel and wanted to form an alliance.

Was there any realistic chance that Israel would have approved the concessions made by Barak at Camp David? I'm not sure exactly how this is done in Israel; here in the US the Senate must ratify all treaties. Is it likewise with the Knesset?

Barak promised to circumvent that by going to the people - passing a referendum.

I'm not sure if that would have worked, but I know I would voted for the agreement.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's apparent from your posts that there is a diversity of opinion in Palestine. Why not withdraw completely from the Occupied territories, and let them have their civil war? At the same time, you guys can have yours. Maybe you could just send the fanatacis from both sides into the Negev and let them all fight it out amongst themselves?

As you may note from debate with eli, (when youre not trolling it) that (withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank, and build a wall) is actually a point of view that is under discussion. It has advantages and disadvantages. the primary risk, as eli made clear, is that whoever wins the Palestinian civil war will build up an arsenal of katyushas and missiles, (as the Hezbollah have done subsequent to the Israeli withdrawl from Lebanon) and that these will then be harder (if not impossible) to remove. The debate tends to focus on the usefulness of conventional air bombardment against missiles based in cities, versus the costs to Israel of any particular level of continued occupation. Both paths and fraught with dangers, and it is by no means an easy debate.


LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Sirot,

Thanks for the Haim Shur piece, it makes me feel less alone in my sense of humiliation and deception as a dove and Barak supporter. I do think it deserves a seperate thread, though.

LOTM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Siro:

[Sirotnikov]

Imran, you should really read the articles.

[Az]

Eventually, Palestinians are going to be the majority in Israel. What will you do then? Drive them into the sea as you did in '48? Take away their right to vote? The Jewish state cannot last indefinately without resorting to tyrrany.

eventually , muslims are going to be the majority in the world. What will you do then? convince them in the rightfulness of the socialist doctrin? Try to preach to them a new way of free thinking? The European civilization cannot last indefinately without resorting to tyranny.


oh and Siro , nice reading and all, but still. .... .

[CyberGnu]

So, siro, are you finally going to denounce your goverment? Or are you incapable of analysing the context of the articles you posted? It is pretty clear that there are different factions among the palestinains, some who want they own state and some who want to eliminate all israel. This is something the sane people of the world have told you guys ever since sharon came to power... and judging from events, sharon is very aware of this, and has gone to great lengths in opposing the PLO, and thus increasing the power of the extremists.

Unfortunately, I expect that you too blinded by hatred to see past your goverments lies... Not to mention understand the difference between the PLO and Hamas.

Maybe it is for the best that you can't empatize with the palestinians.. the realization that you have become what the jewish people have demonized since wwII would most likely be crushing.

[Rasputin]

it is interesting that the Palestinains rejected the Barak Peace accord . partly because it left a disjointed , stretched out , area of control for them. Yet this is exactly how the original Jewish State was put forward by the UN. But at least they are consistent, they refused to accept that proposal too.

I think people have to remember that their never existed a soverign Palestine Nation, it was always controlled by others. History does show that at some time the Jews did control the land under their own right. The Palestininas probably have more claim to the land now known as Jordan.

[GeneralTacticus]

The Palestininas probably have more claim to the land now known as Jordan.

I think there is (or was) a Palestinian faction that wanted to not only conquer Israel but also Jordan. Called something like the Democratic Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine.

the realization that you have become what the jewish people have demonized since wwII would most likely be crushing.

I apologize if I misunderstand what you said, but why must people sontinue comparing Israel with Nazi Germany?? If the Israelis worked the same way as the Nazis, the IDf would go in against the Palestinians with full force, and raze every Palestinian structure in the West Bank and Gaza to the ground. They would then line up all the Palestinian people they could get their hands on and mow them down. Israeli Arabs would lose their citizenship and get the same treatment.

Compared to that, Israeli policy is a walk in the park. It equivalent to two people fighting, a bug guy and little guy. The little guy is whacking the big guy as hard as he can, and when the big guy tries to hit him back, people are shouting at him that he is being unfair and that it is his fault that the little guy is hitting him.

People who demand that Isarael stop retaliating are making the problem worse, because the Palestinian terrorists aren't going to stop until they have what they want, the whole territory of Israel. Trying to prevent Israel from defending itself means that they have no means of solving the problem, and no-one else seems to have any interest in doing it for them.

Isn't it odd the way the use of force by terrorist groups against the US and it's allies is called justified, while the use of force AGAINST said terrorist group by the Us and it's allies is imperialism, colonailism and oppression. Would anyone care to explain how this is all meant to hold up?