http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna?disp=comments en-EU http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:29:31 +0000 c928@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Just to clarify: I have no illusions about Hamas. But I don't think that all Palestinians who voted for Hamas were voting to reject Israel and support terrorism. Here's one more article that is making waves, from Foreign Policy magazine: http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3360 Getting Real With Hamas By Nathan J. Brown Posted February 2006 If President Bush and the European Union demand too much, too soon from Hamas, the effort could backfire and make things worse for the Palestinians, Israelis, and Western diplomacy. End to aid? The United States and European Union have threatened to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority. Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images In Washington and Brussels, Hamas’s landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections poses an immediate dilemma: what to do with all the funding for the Palestinian Authority? Although they are still coordinating their positions, the United States and European Union are leaning toward linking financial support to fundamental changes by the triumphant Islamist movement. In his January 31 State of the Union address, President Bush said “[T]he leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.” The conditions are reasonable enough, but they must be accompanied by careful thinking about how to measure compliance and progress. Setting conditions on Hamas may force it to confront difficult choices, but pressure applied clumsily will easily backfire. Just as bad, the United States and Europe could get handcuffed to a policy they will find it difficult to extricate themselves from later. Cutting off funding entirely is a bad option that may provoke economic collapse and humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza. The demise of the Palestinian Authority would result in a leaderless society in a continuous state of low-level warfare with Israel. Islamists in the region who have argued in favor of democratic change will find themselves unable to answer the charge that the international community will never accept Islamist parties in power. It’s possible, alternatively, that Hamas would stave of fiscal collapse by turning to Iran and Saudi Arabia for funding—an alignment hardly likely to serve either U.S. or Israeli interests. Accommodating a Hamas-led government and keeping international aid flowing may be more effective—but only if it supports the long-term goal of peace. Is that possible? Or is the group’s agenda simply too extreme? Hamas, after all, rejects a two-state solution and maintains a right to resistance—and the group’s definition of resistance includes murderous attacks on civilian targets. Therefore, conditioning aid is a sound approach. Still, presenting demands for immediate change in stark and aggressive terms will likely elicit only resistance. Hamas is a movement that prides itself on its principles and is unlikely to abandon them easily. Even if some of its leaders wanted to shift positions, the movement’s ponderous decision-making structures would make it difficult to do so in the face of outside pressure. Any change in Hamas will likely be gradual. As much as possible, the West should allow pressures from within the Arab and Muslim world to work. It’s important to recognize that the Palestinians themselves may demand a more moderate approach to Israel. Hamas is extremely sensitive to Palestinian public opinion and recognizes that the majority of voters actually favored parties supporting a two-state solution. (Hamas’s electoral campaign avoided mention of its hard-line position on Israel.) Other mainstream Islamist groups in the region—looking to Palestine as a test case—are unlikely to criticize (and may even cheer) a moderation of the Hamas position if it demonstrates that Islamists can govern effectively. But if Hamas will not repudiate its position on Israel and terrorism immediately, what realistic benchmarks might be used to judge its moderation? What sort of steps might assure Israelis that a viable negotiating process is possible despite the Hamas landslide? The demand that Hamas recognize Israel can be converted into several different formulas, some of which Hamas leaders have hinted (but only hinted) might be acceptable. For instance, Hamas might allow moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel as he pleases, with any resulting agreement subject to a referendum. Or it might allow the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, Israel’s formal negotiating partner) to bargain with Israel, with any final agreement subject to approval by the body that oversees the PLO, the Palestine National Council. These mechanisms would allow Hamas to hold to its positions while still bowing to political realities. None of these approaches offers guaranteed success, and the prospects for failure are substantial. But there will be plenty of time to deal with the consequences of failure. All players should now avoid locking themselves into positions they will regret later. If prospects for Arab democracy, democratic Islamic political movements, and Israeli-Palestinian peace are to survive the Hamas landslide victory, creative benchmarks rather than rigid slogans must be the guide. Nathan J. Brown is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, professor of political science at George Washington University, and author of Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords. He served as an observer for the Palestinian elections as a member of the National Democratic Institute/Carter Center team.
Here's one more article that is making waves, from Foreign Policy magazine:
http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3360

Getting Real With Hamas
By Nathan J. Brown
Posted February 2006

If President Bush and the European Union demand too much, too soon from Hamas, the effort could backfire and make things worse for the Palestinians, Israelis, and Western diplomacy.







End to aid? The United States and European Union have threatened to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority.


Said Khatib/AFP/Getty Images


In Washington and Brussels, Hamas’s landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections poses an immediate dilemma: what to do with all the funding for the Palestinian Authority? Although they are still coordinating their positions, the United States and European Union are leaning toward linking financial support to fundamental changes by the triumphant Islamist movement. In his January 31 State of the Union address, President Bush said “[T]he leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace.”

The conditions are reasonable enough, but they must be accompanied by careful thinking about how to measure compliance and progress. Setting conditions on Hamas may force it to confront difficult choices, but pressure applied clumsily will easily backfire. Just as bad, the United States and Europe could get handcuffed to a policy they will find it difficult to extricate themselves from later.

Cutting off funding entirely is a bad option that may provoke economic collapse and humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza. The demise of the Palestinian Authority would result in a leaderless society in a continuous state of low-level warfare with Israel. Islamists in the region who have argued in favor of democratic change will find themselves unable to answer the charge that the international community will never accept Islamist parties in power. It’s possible, alternatively, that Hamas would stave of fiscal collapse by turning to Iran and Saudi Arabia for funding—an alignment hardly likely to serve either U.S. or Israeli interests.

Accommodating a Hamas-led government and keeping international aid flowing may be more effective—but only if it supports the long-term goal of peace. Is that possible? Or is the group’s agenda simply too extreme? Hamas, after all, rejects a two-state solution and maintains a right to resistance—and the group’s definition of resistance includes murderous attacks on civilian targets.

Therefore, conditioning aid is a sound approach. Still, presenting demands for immediate change in stark and aggressive terms will likely elicit only resistance. Hamas is a movement that prides itself on its principles and is unlikely to abandon them easily. Even if some of its leaders wanted to shift positions, the movement’s ponderous decision-making structures would make it difficult to do so in the face of outside pressure. Any change in Hamas will likely be gradual.

As much as possible, the West should allow pressures from within the Arab and Muslim world to work. It’s important to recognize that the Palestinians themselves may demand a more moderate approach to Israel. Hamas is extremely sensitive to Palestinian public opinion and recognizes that the majority of voters actually favored parties supporting a two-state solution. (Hamas’s electoral campaign avoided mention of its hard-line position on Israel.) Other mainstream Islamist groups in the region—looking to Palestine as a test case—are unlikely to criticize (and may even cheer) a moderation of the Hamas position if it demonstrates that Islamists can govern effectively.

But if Hamas will not repudiate its position on Israel and terrorism immediately, what realistic benchmarks might be used to judge its moderation? What sort of steps might assure Israelis that a viable negotiating process is possible despite the Hamas landslide?

The demand that Hamas recognize Israel can be converted into several different formulas, some of which Hamas leaders have hinted (but only hinted) might be acceptable. For instance, Hamas might allow moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate with Israel as he pleases, with any resulting agreement subject to a referendum. Or it might allow the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, Israel’s formal negotiating partner) to bargain with Israel, with any final agreement subject to approval by the body that oversees the PLO, the Palestine National Council. These mechanisms would allow Hamas to hold to its positions while still bowing to political realities.

None of these approaches offers guaranteed success, and the prospects for failure are substantial. But there will be plenty of time to deal with the consequences of failure. All players should now avoid locking themselves into positions they will regret later. If prospects for Arab democracy, democratic Islamic political movements, and Israeli-Palestinian peace are to survive the Hamas landslide victory, creative benchmarks rather than rigid slogans must be the guide.




Nathan J. Brown is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, professor of political science at George Washington University, and author of Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords. He served as an observer for the Palestinian elections as a member of the National Democratic Institute/Carter Center team.
]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2006/01/27/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio#c928 Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:35:34 +0000 c924@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ I think it's easy to say, "Well, the terrorists won." And you could be right, Ratna. But I'll post a link to a transcript of three people who were there. I particularly respect the last speaker, Shibley Telhami, who called the election a peaceful overthrow of a regime. A non-violent revolution, if you will. Just a little (perhaps naive) hope that things are not all grim. I don't think that the Palestinians voted for terrorism. THey voted against corruption. Best wishes, Wendy in Washington Please check out http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=251 “The 2006 Palestinian Elections: What Next?” Transcript of Remarks by Dalal Hasan, Edward Abington and Shibley Telhami For the Record No. 242 (8 February 2006)* Just a little (perhaps naive) hope that things are not all grim. I don't think that the Palestinians voted for terrorism. THey voted against corruption.
Best wishes, Wendy in Washington
Please check out http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/images/fortherecord.php?ID=251
“The 2006 Palestinian Elections: What Next?”
Transcript of Remarks by Dalal Hasan, Edward Abington and Shibley Telhami
For the Record No. 242 (8 February 2006)*]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2006/01/27/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio#c924 Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:52:19 +0000 c833@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ An excellent well-researched article. It illustrates an excellent understanding of the Hamas psyche and their intransigence in recognizing Israel's right to exist. The links provided are appropriate. I strongly recommennd this article to all those interested in the dynamics of this dispute.Ratna, keep up the good work! http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2006/01/27/hamas_victory_in_the_palestinian_electio#c833 Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:54:56 +0000 c84@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Dear Ratna, Thanks for the update. If you could leave another post here with links to some of the article in English at the site perhaps some people will have a look. Also, on the Dutch blog here, it would be good to post a link to some of the Dutch articles. - Andre
Thanks for the update. If you could leave another post here with links to some of the article in English at the site perhaps some people will have a look.

Also, on the Dutch blog here, it would be good to post a link to some of the Dutch articles.

- Andre]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/11/09/something_new_to_say#c84 Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:05:16 +0000 c66@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Hi Wendy, I have heard and read a lot of opposition to the disengagement by the left. They not only said it should be coordinated better with the Palestinians, but opposed it because Israel doesn't withdraw at the same time from the West Bank too. They say Israel has withdrawn from Gaza because they wanted to get rid of it anyway and not as a concession to the Palestinians. They say Israel did it only to strengthen it's hold on the West Bank. I also heard more than once that Sharon wouldn't carry it out and only announced it to please the USA. It is true that Israel left Gaza for pragmatic reasons and not for love of the Palestinians, but those people neglect the fact that, as you wrote, disengagement shows that Israel can stand up against the settlers and execute a decision against their will. Many on the left are of the opinion that Sharon can do no good, and so disengagement can't be good. I don't overlook the opposition of the right and the 'Greater Israel' advocates. However, their predictions that disengagement would cause a civil war and that thousends of soldiers would refuse to carry out evacuation orders, proved to be wrong. They fear that more 'disengagements' will follow, and I hope they are right, but this will only happen if the Palestinians keep some order in Gaza and Abbas acts against Hamas. Yesterday Hamas fired the first qassams into Israel after disengagement, and today Israel fired it’s first missiles into Gaza after disengagement :-(. However, the PA took a strong stance against Hamas' victory rallies after an explosion left at least 15 people dead, and challenged its claim that an Israeli airstrike is to blame for it. Ratna I have heard and read a lot of opposition to the disengagement by the left. They not only said it should be coordinated better with the Palestinians, but opposed it because Israel doesn't withdraw at the same time from the West Bank too. They say Israel has withdrawn from Gaza because they wanted to get rid of it anyway and not as a concession to the Palestinians. They say Israel did it only to strengthen it's hold on the West Bank. I also heard more than once that Sharon wouldn't carry it out and only announced it to please the USA. It is true that Israel left Gaza for pragmatic reasons and not for love of the Palestinians, but those people neglect the fact that, as you wrote, disengagement shows that Israel can stand up against the settlers and execute a decision against their will. Many on the left are of the opinion that Sharon can do no good, and so disengagement can't be good.
I don't overlook the opposition of the right and the 'Greater Israel' advocates. However, their predictions that disengagement would cause a civil war and that thousends of soldiers would refuse to carry out evacuation orders, proved to be wrong. They fear that more 'disengagements' will follow, and I hope they are right, but this will only happen if the Palestinians keep some order in Gaza and Abbas acts against Hamas. Yesterday Hamas fired the first qassams into Israel after disengagement, and today Israel fired it’s first missiles into Gaza after disengagement :-(. However, the PA took a strong stance against Hamas' victory rallies after an explosion left at least 15 people dead, and challenged its claim that an Israeli airstrike is to blame for it.

Ratna
]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/08/24/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken#c66 Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:17:02 +0000 c64@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ I always enjoy your thoughts, Ratna. Together with you, I marvel at how smoothly the disengagement occurred. I wish more coordination were possible with the Palestinians and Egyptians, but I'm relieved that it didn't get bogged down in negotiations. I do hope that the decent Palestinians in Gaza can build a better life for themselves there--they deserve it. One small quibble: you say that those on the LEFT were proven wrong...you're correct that there was opposition by some on the left who wanted extensive coordination with the Palestinians. But please don't overlook the opposition on the RIGHT to disengagement. The RIGHT-WING in Israel, which is fanatically attached to the settlements, is the main obstacle to Israel's becoming a financially independent, truly democratic state. They define "Zionism" in expansionist territorial terms. This disengagement showed that it is possible to stand up to them, and how necessary it is to do so, for Israel's future. B'Shalom, In Peace, Your Friend on the Left, Wendy in Washington, D.C. One small quibble: you say that those on the LEFT were proven wrong...you're correct that there was opposition by some on the left who wanted extensive coordination with the Palestinians. But please don't overlook the opposition on the RIGHT to disengagement. The RIGHT-WING in Israel, which is fanatically attached to the settlements, is the main obstacle to Israel's becoming a financially independent, truly democratic state. They define "Zionism" in expansionist territorial terms. This disengagement showed that it is possible to stand up to them, and how necessary it is to do so, for Israel's future.
B'Shalom, In Peace,
Your Friend on the Left,
Wendy in Washington, D.C. ]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/08/24/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken#c64 Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:13:37 +0000 c55@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ This article has much truth in it and shows excellent insight into what is happening here. However, if I may add, much depends on whether the Palestinian leadership under Mahmoud Abbas will do more to rein in the terror of Hamas and its allies. If he does not, then nothing will be achieved. The situation could deteriorate. If Hamas does not become pragmatic and change their attitude towards Israel, I do not see any corridor being built connecting Gaza with the West Bank. This could result in infiltration of terrorists. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a change of heart in Hamas. They stand a very strong chance of making serious inroads into Mahmoud Abbas's power base in the upcoming Palestinian elections.One of two things could happen. 1. Hamas could become more pragmatic if elected and discard their anti-Israel existence manifesto or at least put their manifesto on hold. Hamas has to do this in order that stability in the Palestinian areas could be maintained which could encourage foreign aid or investment. 2. Hamas could carry on the terror unabated in the hope of Israel disengaging from the West Bank. It worked in Gaza and perhaps, from their point of view it would work again in the West Bank. Hamas could remain adamant in not recognizing Israel's right to exist. The future of peace lies in the hands of Hamas and her allies and not in Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority who are weak and ineffectual in combating terror. There is not much room for optimism in the future. The way things are moving now, Hamas will become stronger.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a change of heart in Hamas. They stand a very strong chance of making serious inroads into Mahmoud Abbas's power base in the upcoming Palestinian elections.One of two things could happen.

1. Hamas could become more pragmatic if elected and discard their anti-Israel existence manifesto or at least put their manifesto on hold. Hamas has to do this in order that stability in the Palestinian areas could be maintained which could encourage foreign aid or investment.

2. Hamas could carry on the terror unabated in the hope of Israel disengaging from the West Bank. It worked in Gaza and perhaps, from their point of view it would work again in the West Bank. Hamas could remain adamant in not recognizing Israel's right to exist.

The future of peace lies in the hands of Hamas and her allies and not in Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority who are weak and ineffectual in combating terror. There is not much room for optimism in the future.

The way things are moving now, Hamas will become stronger.

]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/08/24/disengagement_critics_were_mistaken#c55 Mon, 08 Aug 2005 17:13:00 +0000 c52@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Comments for this blog exist in the ZOTW Forum ZOTW Forum]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/08/06/to_much_tolerance_of_jewish_extremism#c52 Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:22:26 +0000 c50@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ i have no comment, but would like to be in contact with ratna pelle, i would like to invite you to subscribe to my weekly e-mail newsletter, the sephardic heritage update which i think will be of interest to you. http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/08/06/to_much_tolerance_of_jewish_extremism#c50 Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:00:54 +0000 c33@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ This is fascinating, Ratna. I would add that Arabs are quite numerous--over 21 countries, who vote as a bloc in the United Nations, and powerful in terms of oil and connections. Israel is a small country in the Middle East, and feels constantly threatened--because of course she is threatened! She is quite isolated in most international fora. That said, it can be difficult to be an Arab in Israel, as it can be difficult to be a minority in any country. But it is also quite, quite difficult to be Jewish or Israeli in the Middle East. The question of who is stronger, or who is a minority, is a difficult one, but your blog rightly divorces the question of who is right from who is stronger. B'Shalom, Wendy Israel is a small country in the Middle East, and feels constantly threatened--because of course she is threatened! She is quite isolated in most international fora.
That said, it can be difficult to be an Arab in Israel, as it can be difficult to be a minority in any country. But it is also quite, quite difficult to be Jewish or Israeli in the Middle East.
The question of who is stronger, or who is a minority, is a difficult one, but your blog rightly divorces the question of who is right from who is stronger.
B'Shalom, Wendy]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/07/06/inequalities_between_israel_and_the_pale#c33 Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:07:08 +0000 c19@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Hi Shimon, Thanks. To be honest, I 'borrowed' this from Ari Shavit's aticle, that constitutes the basis of this blog. In my next blog I discuss a critic of this article by Aktiva Eldar and Daniel Bar-Tal. Thanks. To be honest, I 'borrowed' this from Ari Shavit's aticle, that constitutes the basis of this blog. In my next blog I discuss a critic of this article by Aktiva Eldar and Daniel Bar-Tal.
]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/07/05/the_threat_and_the_occupation#c19 Fri, 08 Jul 2005 07:08:38 +0000 c18@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ I had just read this post. Suffice it to say, it is well written and balanced. It has hit the nail on the head. The placing of this conflict in a nutshell by referring to it as "the Occupation and the Threat" is appropriate indeed. The occupation occurred as a result of the threat rings very true. The rest of this excellent article is self-explanatory. Regards, Shimon
The occupation occurred as a result of the threat rings very true.

The rest of this excellent article is self-explanatory.
Regards,
Shimon ]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/07/05/the_threat_and_the_occupation#c18 Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:53:02 +0000 c17@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Interesting... I still don't see why with an Arab Israeli population in Israel (those who were there when the country was formed) there can't be a Jewish Palestinian population in Palestine. Such a solution would mean populations don't need to be transfered when the borders are decided. When I mentioned this to something in relation to the Gza pull out they were shocked... "Because they'll all be killed if they stay" was their response. This suggests a larger problem in either Palestinain society or some people's perception of palestinian society. Either way ti is yet another problem to be addressed in order to get to a long term solution. - Andre
- Andre]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/06/16/excluding_narratives#c17 Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:36:52 +0000 c7@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Beste Ratna, Je hebt een uitgebreid commentaar op mijn blog achtergelaten, bedankt daarvoor. Omdat het een posting van twee weken geleden betrof kwam ik er alleen bij toeval achter dat je gereageerd had. Stuur de volgende keer ook even een mailtje om me te laten weten als je op een posting reageert die ouder is dan, pakweg, een week. Ik kon geen e-mail adres op je website vinden, dus doe ik dit zo, via je comments. Je naam komt me bekend voor, heb je toevallig eind jaren 80, begin jaren 90 bij de JS in Amsterdam gezeten? Neem ajb contact op via mijn e-mail. Groeten, Bert
Je hebt een uitgebreid commentaar op mijn blog achtergelaten, bedankt daarvoor. Omdat het een posting van twee weken geleden betrof kwam ik er alleen bij toeval achter dat je gereageerd had. Stuur de volgende keer ook even een mailtje om me te laten weten als je op een posting reageert die ouder is dan, pakweg, een week.
Ik kon geen e-mail adres op je website vinden, dus doe ik dit zo, via je comments.
Je naam komt me bekend voor, heb je toevallig eind jaren 80, begin jaren 90 bij de JS in Amsterdam gezeten? Neem ajb contact op via mijn e-mail.

Groeten,

Bert]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/06/03/anti_semitism_and_the_radical_left#c7 Tue, 17 May 2005 10:25:03 +0000 c6@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Hi Shimon, Thanks for your comment. I agree that Israels settlement policy was and is wrong, and it certainly encouraged hostility towards Israel. The subject of this blog was however, why double standards exist, and Israel is judged more severily for its wrongs than other countries. More countries occupy territories where another people wants to establish their own state. A major problem is that much critisism on Israel hides a denial of its right to exist. The fact that the Six Day war is viewed by many as an expansionist war of Israel, not a war 'foisted onto Israel to destroy her' as you say, is a clear indication of this. Ratna http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/05/15/double_standards#c6 Tue, 17 May 2005 09:57:06 +0000 c5@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Good blog, but a little long! http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/05/15/double_standards#c5 Mon, 16 May 2005 12:42:21 +0000 c4@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ An excellent article written with much sensitivity. However, the fact still remains that Israel had occupied territory as a result of the Six Day War of June 1967 and encouraged Israeli settlement in these areas. Many of these settlers were given various tax exemptions and other perks.Their treatment and exploitation of the Palestinians left much to be desired.Israel would have been in a far better position morally had there not been settlements in occupied Palestinian lands. It is very difficult to justify an occupation by one nation over another and this is a strong point that is not in Israel's favour. Many of us are aware that the Six Day War of 1967 was a war foisted onto Israel in order to destroy her. This fact is overlooked by many nations for expediency sake and the word "Israeli Occupation" is ingrained in the world psyche.The threat of use of the "oil weapon" instills fear in the world. If Israel had oil for export then the world attitude and cronyism towards the Arab states would be far less. The world of nations always see the situation in the Middle East in simplistic terms such as "Israel being the occupier and denier of Palestinian rights is no match for the Palestinians",
It is very difficult to justify an occupation by one nation over another and this is a strong point that is not in Israel's favour. Many of us are aware that the Six Day War of 1967 was a war foisted onto Israel in order to destroy her. This fact is overlooked by many nations for expediency sake
and the word "Israeli Occupation" is ingrained in the world psyche.The threat of use of the "oil weapon" instills fear in the world. If Israel had oil for export then the world attitude and cronyism towards the Arab states would be far less.

The world of nations always see the situation in the Middle East in simplistic terms such as "Israel being the occupier and denier of Palestinian rights is no match for the Palestinians", ]]> http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/05/15/double_standards#c4 Mon, 16 May 2005 02:11:02 +0000 c3@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ You did an excellent job with your blog. Thanks for Buruma's article; it's excellent. I don't always agree with him on the particulars (I'm more right-wing), but in general, he has excellent insight into the situation, and is very fair-minded. (Have you read his and Avishai Margalit's work "Occidentalism"?) One more thing I'd add to your excellent analysis of the situation is how little attention is being paid to the failure of Palestinian leadership. http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/05/15/double_standards#c3 Mon, 09 May 2005 22:38:52 +0000 c2@http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/ Well put. There is a question of why this double standard exists both in the minds of some and in the actions of nations (e.g. UN resoltuions)... but that's antoher topic. http://www.zionismontheweb.org/blogs/index.php/Ratna/2005/05/09/why_i_am_defending_zionism#c2