Slashdot Mirror
New Mega-Leak Reveals Middle East Peace Process
An anonymous reader writes "There's been yet another mega-leak, this time of 1,600 papers describing the Israeli/Palestinian peace process negotiations. It's independent of Wikileaks and came to light via al-Jazeera, showing perhaps that the mega-leak meme is here to stay whatever happens to Assange. The papers show a weak Palestinian side offering ever greater concessions to Israel, which flatly rejected this as being insufficient: 'We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands,' Israel's then foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, told the Palestinians, 'and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it.'"
Israel has a huge defense industry, they even make their own tanks (the Merkava, it's huge and carries infantry). The Palestinians are generally doing what they can as well (making their own rockets to fire into Israel, called the Qassam).
Cutting off military imports to these guys won't work, I suspect even if you removed all the weapons they'd still throw rocks at each other... oh wait.. they're already doing that.
You realize the term "meme" predates its modern usage of describing "LOL cats", and other internet ephemera, right? The guy who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, coined it to explain much larger phenomena, like the evolution of society as a whole, and pretty much all evolving intellectual and sociological phenomena that is not immediately traceable to genetics.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I said "effectively". Maybe the meaning was unclear. Would you prefer "essentially"? How about "more-or-less"?
Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality, if not on paper. They have complete freedom of religion, and have had Muslims and Druze serving in all aspects of the government, including as Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, and army generals. When the only thing making them non-secular is that they self-identify as a Jewish state, it's fair to say that they ARE secular for all intents and purposes.
Pretty close to it, yes. Courts in Israel are civil courts, not based on Jewish religious law. Legislation is passed by a civil legislative body, not a religious one. Religions are considered equal before the law. There is no official state religion, and there is freedom of religion and of worship.
There is one weirdness, which is marriage. There is no "civil" marriage in Israel; there are only religious marriage under the auspices of the various religions practiced by the people being married. This can cause problems for non-Orthodox Jews, for interfaith marriages, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel has details.
Also note that in Israel being Jewish is not necessarily a religious matter; it's an ethnic matter. You can be an atheist and still be considered Jewish ethnically.
This can matter for things like military service, where ethnic minorities are generally exempt from the draft (though accepted as volunteers).
In any case, I suppose it depends on your definition of "separation of religion and state". It's not exactly a black-and-white line; there are gradations. Would you say that religion and state are separated in Germany, say?
The brits are responsible for what happens in Israel just as much as the US if not more. I'm sorry but history shows who lived in palenstine long before the mass Israeli illegal immigration. Encouraged as a final solution to the Jew problem by England, maybe the Jews were not killed like the Nazi's did, but they have done nothing, but murder and create their own ghettos and stuffed them with the palenstinean people.
Israel has always been the primary agressor, these people they have displaced barely have anything to fight back with and because they use bombs against a populace that 90% have served in the military and are required to stay in the reserves for quite awhile I would not consider them entirely civilian.
You corner an animal it will fight back and use every dirty trick it knows.
Feel free to look it up it's called the Palenstien Mandate.
Last time I checked (a few years ago), Al-Jazeera was a shining example of independent journalism that reports all sides of a story, and is criticized in the West for being too pro-Islam, and very harshly criticized in the Islamic world for being too anti-Islam. Have things changed? Can you please cite me an example of Al-Jazeera having an agenda (other than "the truth", which is what Al-Jazeera means)?
Al-Jazeera receives funding from the government of Qatar (and is based in Qatar). The government of Qatar is a pretty big ally of the government of the United States. The government of the United State is a pretty big supporter of the Government of Israel. You make of that what you will when you see them report on news that is not taken well in Israel, the United State, or Qatar.
Even wikileaks leaves itself wide open to astroturfing with manufactured 'leaks' to suit someone's agenda. It doesn't even have to go that far if someone somewhere is deciding what to leak and what to bury.
Wikileaks do their best to verify the leaks before publishing them. IIRC, they sent some people to Iraq to confirm the authenticity of the leaked video, before publishing "Collateral Murder", for example. While it's possible that they will make a mistake sooner or later, I don't think that what you're describing is so easy.
A point of information: The leak makes the PA look bad. The PA comes out as lying to their citizens
Israel comes out of it pretty much as they were before, as simply not interested in negotiation that do not give them all they want.
AlJazeera has demolished the PA with this article. *I* am truly shocked.
This is not a signature.
You know what the saddest thing about the whole Middle-East crisis is ? The people fighting are the same people on both sides.
Genetic research has shown that the Palestinians and the Israeli's are the SAME people. More specifically the Palestinians are the descendants of the so-called "ten lost tribes" - it's not even conjecture, it's basic proven science. In the years since the diaspora (and the classic story about why that happened is simply not true: the Romans never displaced any culture, so to think they did it in Israel is silly).
Here's what science says happened: A lot of Jews left Israel during the Roman occupation, settling around Europe in two major groups. The Azkanazi in Eastern Europe and the Sephardi in Spain. These two groups were the two not-lost tribes. What happened to the other ten ? They were not scattered and dispersed or lost, that legend is false. They stayed right there where they were, over time they converted to Islam.
When the other two tribes started coming back they found a largely Arab culture with an Islamic religion living in the area and claiming it as their homeland.
They could not believe that these Muslim Palestinians were fellow Jews (especially since it didn't fit their legends that all the tribes left), and the Palestinians would never have thought that their ancestors were Jewish Israelites.
But the scientific evidence is extremely strong - they share a very direct common ancestry and were one people just about 1700 years ago (in other words, almost exactly when the diaspora started).
An inevitable war between brothers, over a homeland that historically belongs as much to one as the other... and they still can't figure out a way to get along. Now that is human nature at it's worst, in a nutshell.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Or to report that the documents show Israeli resistance to Palestinian concessions when in fact it's the opposite. A couple of well known facts to historians that the media refuses to report are that Jerusalem and the West Bank are legally undisputed Israeli land that Israel can choose to give away or not at its pleasure, that the Palestinians are a Nazi terrorist organization dedicated to exterminating the Jews, and that the Arab League has cultivated the Palestinians as a weapon against Israel to further the territorial dominion of the Arab race and/or Islam depending on which nut is in power.
The peace process itself is rarely reported on either. When was the last time a Western newspaper reported that Israel already granted the Palestinians additional territory in the 1990s and the result was a war? When was the last time a newspaper reported that Israel allowed the Palestinians to enter Israel in the early 1980s and granted them power over the Arab cities re-conquered from Jordan and Egypt in exchange for peace, and the Palestinians instead staged a revolt and massacred Arabs who supported peace with the Jews while everyone's attention was turned? When was the last time a Western newspaper reported that the first Intifadah was a bloody purge of peaceful Arabs by the Palestinians? When was the last time a newspaper reported that the Palestinians were founded in 1964 with help from the USSR, that the CIA had for a time backed the Palestinians' predecessor Fatah through its ex-Nazi German agents, and that the Nazis had gained these links to Palestine by supporting a racist preacher's private militia? When was the last time a newspaper pointed out that the "Palestinian" flag was designed by a Brit for the Hejaz army, and those dumbasses are flying it upside-down? And when was the last time anyone questioned whether a flag symbolizing the ethnic supremacy of Arabs over the Turks, which was flown as violent mobs of Arabs committed genocide against any Turks they could find, would have any meaning if it a violent mob of Arabs now flew it in front of their Jewish neighbours?
Israel gave the Palestinians land, money, power, and weapons in exchange for a promise of peace, and instead got war and a promise reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas about two weeks ago that this war will never end until every Jew is dead. In this context, anything short of a return to the pre-2000 status is an insult. Now let us consider these "concessions" in context.
"Concession": The Palestinians may be willing to drop the demand that Israel give away its capitol city of Jerusalem, which would include a complete ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the city. Choosing not to do that is not a great concession. It is an insult to Israel to suggest that it should be considered.
"Concession": The Palestinians may reduce from the current figure of several millions the number of Palestinian-educated Arabs that they will insist Israel accept into Israel after the Palestinians are given a contiguous state from Israeli land. Note that these Arabs are supposed to belong to the Palestinian state and be loyal to it but live in Israel instead of the Palestinian state or the other Arab state that already exists in Palestine or any of the several Arab states in Arabia. Israel is expected to feed and house multiple divisions of fanatics dedicated to the destruction of their country. Again, this offer is an insult to Israel rather than a concession.
Note that the descendants of Arab refugees from the Israeli war of independence already can return to Israel by acquiring passports and they can apply for Israeli citizenship. Their primary obstacles are the Arab League which discourages giving them passports precisely so they cannot do this, and the Palestinians who will kill them.
And there's not much else in th
Not quite. The "peace" process has been the Group of Four telling Israel to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it", while the Palestinians commit frequent acts of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state). Another example: a cessation to terrorism is one of the first steps on the Road Map, and yet Abbas (the guy who was supposedly more peace-loving than Arafat) refused to commit to that, claiming that it would cause a "civil war". Then there was the case of Israel leaving Gaza, only to be rewarded with MORE rocket attacks. Some "partner for peace" those Palestinians were.
The map is correct? Each of the for maps use a different definition of Jewish/Palestinian land!
I don't even know what is the definition of the first map, probably attempt to use private ownership, or maybe the Jewish settlements are in white and everything else is considered Palestinian. The negev desert (bottom half) was largely unpopulated at the time (and very sparsely populated today).
The second map is of the UN decision, not of anything actually there. The Palestinians didn't accept this decision until 1988, and the result was the Israeli war of independence.
The Third actually depicts something somewhat meaningful, this are the borders by the end of mentioned war. However, the "Palestinian land" in this map wasn't Palestinian, it was either Jordanian or Egyptian (Gaza was under Egyptian control, the west bank Jordanian), the area didn't have any special status in those countries.
The fourth map is the result of the Oslo agreement, and it is basically the opposite of the first map. The agreement, since it was supposed to be only a step towards a permanent agreement, established the PA, and gave it control in most Palestinian populated areas. All further discussions between Israel and the PA assumes that these areas will remain under Palestinian control and almost all the occupied territories will be passed to them as well. If you accept the definitions of this map, it is a big step from the situation in 1967-1993, all white map.
Dreadful source, and in the maps as well (although each map, maybe except the first, can be said to be correct by some definition, comparing them is a lie).
Not quite. The "peace" process has been the Group of Four telling Israel to, essentially, "relax and enjoy it", while the Palestinians commit frequent acts of terrorism against the Israelis, and the Palestinian leadership refuse to concede even the most basic realities (Israel's existence as a Jewish state, and its right to exist as a Jewish state).
Not true - the PLO recognised the state of Israel in 1993. Israel – Palestine Liberation Organization letters of recognition: "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself...to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations...the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence"
Another example: a cessation to terrorism is one of the first steps on the Road Map, and yet Abbas (the guy who was supposedly more peace-loving than Arafat) refused to commit to that, claiming that it would cause a "civil war".
I don't know if he actually said that - but if he did, then he was right: Palestinian civil war.
Then there was the case of Israel leaving Gaza, only to be rewarded with MORE rocket attacks. Some "partner for peace" those Palestinians were.
Making a basic rocket isn't that hard. There are at about ten different groups that have fired rockets - these groups are not unified, have different leadership, sometimes have conflicting goals, and at times openly war against each other. The rockets are a problem, but to consider these groups as unified is incorrect. I think it was Hamas who said that they can request and reason with the other groups to stop rocket attacks, but these groups are not part of the Hamas military. Hence Hamas ceasefires only apply to groups under Hamas, not to every single Palestinian group. This is not really a surprising situation - look at the "Real IRA" etc. in Northern Ireland, who have carried out a number of attacks despite the IRA/Sinn Fein being committed to the peace process.
They did in fact leave in the fragment where you see people carrying what appear to be rifles. They also gave a clear link to the full unedited version, for people interested in the broader context. The editing is understandable, because few people would want to sit through the whole thing, where mostly nothing happens -- they left in only the most interesting parts.
Yours is an oft repeated argument, but I just don't see how you can honestly claim such strong bias on their behalf. While they did choose the name "collateral murder", suggesting anti-American military bias, they provided all the necessary information for any intelligent person to make up their own mind about it. The title was just about the only slanted aspect of the release.
While they could have named the release differently, they certainly did a good job of attracting attention to it, leading to many press articles with more detailed behind-the-scenes information.
Just as you don't read newspapers that seem wrongly biased to you, you didn't have to watch the Wikileaks release. Pretty much all the media used it as a source and offered their own analysis. But this was only possible thanks to the public service of publishing the leak and drawing attention to it in the first place.
All things considered, such a service is so valuable that anyone who supports government accountability should be thankful to Wikileaks, even if they disagree with the apparent bias.
>the US was the only colony to break away from England ever
How self-centered can you get ?
In 1802 the Cape Colony did it under the treaty of Amiens (though they took it back in 1806). The British attempt to Annex and colonize the two Boer Republics (the OVS and ZAR) in 1890 and were defeated - they tried again in 1900 and ultimately won - though the country as a whole became self-ruling in 1910 and a wholly independent republic in 1961.
India won their independence through a revolt, initially largely peaceful (since the leader Mahatma Ghandi was a pacifist) it became violent later on - but India won in the end.
Technically even Hong Kong qualifies and somewhat earlier China certainly does.
Zimbabwe was the former British colony of Rhodesia before they became an independent republic through a war of independence in 1980.
In fact you will find that the vast majority of British colonies won their freedom on the battlefield and only a small number got "granted" independence - most of those were after 1980 when the system was pretty much falling apart.
Now what is true is that the USA were among the first to do so - but don't think you're particularly unique in doing so, not in the least. In fact, your early history is remarkably similar to South Africa's - you were a Dutch colony (New York was originally called New Amsterdam and a great many American surnames are of Dutch descent - every single one with "Van" in it for starters) before being taken over by the British (at the exact same time as the Cape Colony and for the exact same reason: Britain's response to the aftermath of the French Revolution). Unlike the Cape - you made no effort to repel them at the time however and became quite happy British citizens right up until your own revolution. The Cape however had a huge anti-British feeling which is why the majority of the Dutch (and to a lesser degree French and German) descended Boers traveled inland away from British rule to establish new republics that would be self governing by 1838. Republics they would subsequently defend from being occupied by Britain again not once but TWICE. Winning the first one and only surrendering the second one due to the British concentration camps causing massive loss of civilian life (women and children).
But being early is by no means the same as being the only one. Quite frankly - most of the world were colonies of either France or Britain not long ago - the vast majority of them won their freedom back by revolution - not diplomacy. Neither the British nor the French felt any need to consider negotiations that would cost them assets worth huge fortunes - the rightful owners of those lands had to take it back by force, or settle for the two great European powers taking it all.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *