What Options Are Left for Palestinians?

10:32 pm, Sun 15 Nov 2009

palestine flag - black power movement sign

When the Obama administration first came in to power the Muslim world was treated to a feast of grand gestures and well chosen words of how the dawning of a new administration in the US would signal a push for peace in Palestine. At Cairo, in June, a more even-handed approach to the conflict was promised in which Israel would be forced to stop building and expanding settlements on the West Bank as a condition for peace. The Muslim world watched on and many hailed the "landmark speech" at the time.

A few months on, things have changed dramatically. Israel issued a resounding "no" to the condition that settlements should not be built. Instead, the US administration's Hilary Clinton is singing the Zionist regime's praises for merely saying that it would at some stage "restrain" settlement progress. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has threatened to would step down in protest to the intransigence of Israel and the non-commitment of the US government.

Any progress seems highly unlikely at this stage. As things stand the Israeli government is bolstered both diplomatically and militarily. Israel is one of the strongest military powers in the world - far above its Middle East neighbours and completely beyond the capability of Palestinians. Diplomatically, it enjoys protection from criticism by both the United States and our very own British government. The Zionist Lobby campaigns around the clock to ensure the Israeli narrative of world events is dominant above others. At home, Israel is controlled by a right-wing government that has no interest in negotiations or peace. Why would they need to negotiate when they are in such a strong position by all standards?

The current situation is not unlike the situation just before the October 1973 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours, primarily Egypt. Intransigence and a dominant position ensured then, as it does now, that Israel did not have to concede an inch to anyone else's demands. At that time a sudden, short attack by Egypt to bring Israel back to the negotiating table succeeded - but only for the good of Egypt and not the Palestinians. This time around such a move is highly unlikely. The world stage has changed and Israel has secured its position even further. Diplomatic pressure seems to be the primary key to securing peace, but a lack of Muslim engagement in the political and civic arenas here in Britain and other areas of the Western world have allowed matters to deteriorate to the point that there is little current political clout available to demand pressure by our government and others on to the Zionist regime. This is allowing the expansion of settlements, the confiscation of land and the segregation of Palestine via the apartheid wall, the carving up of the land through roadblocks and checkpoints.

Time is fast running out. If political pressure is not applied on Israel by our government and others in the West, soon there may be no Palestine to free.

Understand more...

Content recommendations from Evri

37 comments

Threats

Submitted by John House on Sun, 15/11/2009 - 11:00pm.

War, jihad, or intifada will only result in westerners, and israeli Jews embracing, using, and evangelizing Biblical Christianity which in turn ensures Islam and Arab/Muslims losing. There is nothing islam/Arabs/Muslims have that can defeat Biblical Christianity. So go ahead and make war and let's see what happens as Jews and others protect themselves with the rock that is Biblical Christianity.

Biblical Christianity is 4 Biblical times only

Submitted by Saracen on Sun, 15/11/2009 - 11:28pm.

What biblical Christianity are you reading my good old parrot. You seem to be stuck on phrase which you don’t seem to understand nor can you explain.

Biblical Christianity is 4 Biblical times only when goliath and dinosaurs attacked each other

Does it make you feel

Submitted by The Real BB on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 12:43am.

Does it make you feel powerful rewriting history?

The paragraph on the 1973 war is particularly hilarious. Where do you get your information?

"a more even-handed approach to the conflict was promised in which Israel would be forced to stop building and expanding settlements on the West Bank as a condition for peace."

If it was so even-handed, what concessions did the Palestinian side make? Can you even name one concession Palestine has made in the last 5 years?

Educate Yourself

Submitted by John House on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 4:00am.

Try looking on the internet to get info on Biblical Christianity and you will find what it is and why it is still relevant for modern times. Or are you so bias or so in denial that you refuse to look it up
Talking about parrots Muslims come with the same things all the time blaming Zionism or the west for their problems instead of looking for answers themselves. or palying the victim card.

Rock of Protection

Submitted by John House on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 4:10am.

And I will continue to present Biblical Christianity as the rock of protection for jews and others as long as Muslims and Islam remains a threat or is perceived as such with their use of terrorism, lies, deceit, subversion, and half truths.

Constructive Criticism

Submitted by WO on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 5:28am.

Saracen.
By saying biblical Christianity is for biblical times you seem to understand or at least have an inkling what biblical Christianity is that John House mentions?.
Am I just imagining things or is there a theme on this website that uses propaganda a lot?. Along with lies, halftruths and outright deception. The core belief on this website seems to be blaming zionism, blaming Israel, blaming the Jews, and blaming the west for every problem encountered by Arabs and Muslims. Well if that is so that is not very constructive and will not solve any problems. But it could lead to war and conflict, and cause way more problems for the Muslim world then they already have. Just some friendly advice, be more constructive then destructive and you will get more of what you want.

Israel HAS frozen new settlement building

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 7:18am.

The idea that Israel has not frozen the building os new settlements is a false one.

Settlements have existing boundaries. All that has happened is that new buildings have been erected inside those boundaries. In what way does that affect the Palestinians? How does it matter if 10,000 people live there or 10,250?

The settlements will be subject to the same agreements in a peace deal irrespective of how many people live there.

Explain it to me.

Its obvious that these Jewish settlements will become part of a Palestinian State and the Palestinians will have Jewish citizens just as Israel has Arab citizens. Seems fair.

Do the Palestinians have a negotiator yet?

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 7:21am.

Can anyone tell me the name of the negotiator from the Palestinian side who has the agreement of Palestinians from West Bank and Gaza to speak and negotiate for them?

I'd love it, absolutely love it if Palestinian declared Independence. That would bring an immediate militarisation of all settlements in order to legitimately protect the population from slaughter. It would also NOT be supported by the UN, EU, Quartet who ONLY recognise The Roadmap.

Can anyone tell us what the Palestinians want?

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 8:09am.

We all know they want a State and we all agree they should have one. But what are their negotiating points?

Since Jerusalem isn't going to be the capital of a Palestinian State then I can see no alternative but declare a state on what they have got and get on with it.

I just read that Israeli politiciians have just responded by saying (what I said) that Israel would immediately annex all settlements as being part of Israel. Palestinian Indpendence won't get them Jerusalem because any violence in Jerusalem will be crushed.

If Palestinians want a State under these conditioins then I actually support it. How are they going to put Gaza and West Bank together? Hamas and Fatah kill each other. They will fight each other for control and there will be Civil War. I suspect they will attack Israel and Israel is in no mood to let it go.

Playing the Zionists Game

Submitted by Q on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 10:25am.

Whether we like it or not, it is our collective responsibility to create the options. To date we have avoided embarking on the exploration of these, and have remained playing out a strategy that suits the hardline "Greater israel" Zionists.
This is fundamentally about change, and as anyone involved in change management knows there is a basic sequence of "Resistance, Denial, Acceptance & Exploration" in relation to change. At present the Palestinian nation floats between Resistance and Denial of change. But change is unavoidable if we want a Palestinian nation state to come into being. We remain firmly attached to a strategy with its reference points in rejection of Tanzimat.
To create a stable nation state we must invest in civil administrative structures and create systems that are responsive to people's needs. To achieve this in the present circumstances we must adopt a creative stance which is capable fo engaging with the Israelis as individuals and a national collective. Pretending that military action can at some point in the future achieve this is absurd and denies the realtiies of the situation. Our attitudes and actions have alienated the moderate Zionists who could have been partners for peace and the creation of a stable state. We have played into the hands of the Zionist extremists time & time again. I propose that we rethink our stance on a number of key issues.

Jerusalem: Instead of demanding exclusive control of Jerusalem and invoking hatred over it, we should agree to share the Old City and honestly accept that prior to 1917 that Jews had been the largest group for decades and that they do have rights.

Settlers: Instead of seeking to throw them out, invite them to remain as permanent residents with the option to adopt Palestinian nationality and ask them to participate in the creation of a Palestinian nation state. Stop making them the focus of hatred and start making them partners & allies.

Massacres: Own up to the past and admit that there have been dreadful abuses committed by Muslims against Jews going back over the centuries. If we are brave enought o do this we can demand the same of the Zionists.

Learn from Zionism: Israel is the best administered state in the region, we have vast amounts to learn from them and why their nationalism developed a stable democracy that is responsive to its ctizens needs. We need a slice of that success.

Stop Propogating Hatred: The endless stream of anti-Jewish hatred must end and must be removed out of our media and education systems. That Mein Kampf is a best seller in the West Bank and Gaza should be a matter of shame to us all.

Start Being Independent: For too long the Palestinian nation has been a tool of various Arab / Muslim states. The likes of Iran, Syria, Libya have funded Palestinian nationalism for their own ends and demanded any enormous and terrible price from the Palestinians in return. We must learn to operate free of their perverse influence and throw off the shackles of intellectual and political slavery.

Use Non-Violence: The IDF has no mechanism in its armoury to combat real non-violence. Instead of throwing stones at them or shooting at them or whatever, we should simply have the courage to stand there and offer them flowers. If we act en masse in peaceful protest and simply ask them to allow us the same as they wish for themselves, they have no response available but to stand aside and let us build our state. They cannot bomb us or shoot us down or fire tear gas if we do not physically threaten them.

Explicitly Recognise Their Humanity: Although it rarely appears in the media there are thousands of small incidents of kindness and humanity that Zionist exhibit toward Palestinians, yet we never make any real effort to acknowledge these. And like anyone who is consistently unthanked, they have become cynical and resentful. If they are our enemies then we should be surprised if they let us have the most basic things let alone priveleges. Because we consistently accuse them all of being criminals and butchers, the kind and humane amongst them are marginalised and isolated. And thus we have lost partners for peace.

If you want to continue to the fantasy that one day in the future an Arab army will drive the Zionists into the sea then you must accept responsibility for the consequences. This is not 1973, the USSR has not re-equipped the Arab armies with the latest missiles and the Israelis are not facing the problems of a defacto arms embargo. The Arab & other Muslim armies are so ineffectual that they are reduced to using proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. The military operational inhibitions that existed in the Israeli strategic response planning ended in 1982. Every regional state knows that an attack upon Israel will result in a blistering all out assault upon their capaitals and national infrastructure.
There is one profound difference between the Arabs and the Zionists. The Arab and Muslim states talk endlessly of what they will do one day to the Zionists and yet they do nothing to liberate Palestine. The Zionists are silent and the IDF destroys all in its path.

Well Said!

Submitted by Anonymous Cowslip on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 1:56pm.

Q, you speak more sense for the Palestinians than their own negotiators.

Thanks????

Submitted by Q on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 2:22pm.

Well now a Zionist has agreed with my suggestion we are all done for, because no one will consider it for fear of being accused of collaboration.
Could you declared Zionusts kindly not express opinions on such matters.
Thanks BTW for your sentiments, but no thanks!

All peace negotiations are collaborations

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 7:48pm.

You can't have peace unless you collaborate.

There is much sense in Palestinians looking at the peace dividend in West Bank and realisisng that an imperfect deal (from their outrageous demands) allows them to move on. If they can prove they are willing to be peaceful neighbours they will reap the benefits of a great engine of commerce and technology on their doorstep.

The Primary Barrier

Submitted by Q on Mon, 16/11/2009 - 10:56pm.

The primary barrier to moving on and finding peace is those groups that have an interest in war.
The Palestinian nation is condemned to live with the Arafat inheritance and that is the plethora of factions and militias. In order to retain power Arafat operated by a method of divide and rule, allowing factions and individuals incentives via kick-backs etc to want this. Arafat appeared to fear the establishment of a coherent and effective national administration.
While this in the short term secured his position, it meant that the government as it was could never be certain that it can deliver on its commitments. In fact the PNA is hostage to the militias.
The only way that we can progress to peace is if either the entire Palestinian nation is disarmed or that all the militias are compelled to merge into a single military force subject to the will of the government. At present there is no will to achieve this in the foreseeable future and thus no chance for peace regardless of which party is in power in Israel.

Ignorant

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 4:23pm.

Actually, Arafat explicitly recognised the State of Israel in a formal letter to Israel. Arafat bent over backwards to comply with Israeli demands. Otherwise, why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize? Though I admit that he was probably corrupt, as is Abbas, he signed the Oslo Accords did he not? And so did Israel. What happened then? Whatever happend to the "final status" negotiations?

Additionally, if you were are informed about the situation as you claims to be, you would already know that talks about a "unitary" government have been going on between Hamas and Fatah.

The Problem With Arafat

Submitted by Q on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 10:12pm.

The problem with Arafat was that he said one thing to the Israelis and another to the Palestinians, and another to his allies and another to the Arab League. He signed the Oslo Accords with the israelis and before the ink had dried he effectively disavowed the spirit of the agreement to the Arab League. Arafat also did not have the national authority to make such an agreement unilaterally, and so although he wrote letters of intent they were not ratified immediately by the PNA.
The use of the word "may" in respect of Arafats personal corruption is astonishing. Arafat and all those around were corrupt. Arafat's personal wealth ranged from somewhere between $300million and over $1billion. The Forbes magazine listed Arafat as the ninth wealthiest head of state in 2004 - so much for the hardy resistance fighter at one with his impoverished people.
From Day 1 the PLO was corrupt and it grew and grew, with aid given by the UN for hungry Palestinian children turning up for sale in the souks of Amman, Damascus & Beyrut. When Arafat & Co came back they awarded each other trade monopolies - tobacco, concrete & cement, vehicle licensing, etc etc. And where did the Israelis buy the concrete for the wall from? And who ran chop shops that organised car thefts from Israel and then issued new vehicle registrations? Answers on a postcard???
I am fully aware of the talks of a unity government but the situation is that it means different things to different people, and Hamas is only acquiescing to it because it needs the Fatah led faction to negotiate an easing of the Gaza restrictions so that it can re-arm and recover from Cast Lead violence. But the Jews will not ease restrictions until Gilad Shalit is returned unharmed and it is clear that Hamas has turned away from kidnappings a mechanism to force Israel to give in. Hamas knows this but will encourage Fatah to make approaches to the Israelis which will ultimately fail because Hamas will not return Shalit. The Israelis will continue the restrictions and Hamas will point out that Fatah has failed, and seek to place itself as the potential leaders.
Next Hamas has no intention of allowing its forces to come under a single combined Palestinian military command. They will use their forces to threatened Fatah and secure concessions. Fatah does not have the strength to take on Hamas forces and win.
All this discussion of unitary government is window dressing to cover up the deep divisions and lack of real leadership.
Then again I may be wrong and from Fatah & Hamas emerge an honest democraric government.

Peace Dividend?

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 4:12pm.

Peace Dividend in the West Bank? Ohhh. Is this that "economic peace" that Netanboohoo has been talking about? Yes. The West Bank can have peace. But the Palestinians living there are still occupied. Still have no control over their own land and laws. Still live under a doubly-illegal regime (both the Israeli Occupation, and the illegal rule of Abbas - he lost the election you know!).

Peace Dividend?

The peace you are talking about is a peace in which the Palestinians shut up whilst Israeli settlements gently encroach upon more and more land, dividing and sub-dividing the West Bank with walls, fences and checkpoints and roads which settlers can travel on, but which Palestinians cannot travel on. Oh, and there is a whopping great wall between you and your land upon which you grow fruit. Do you have the right permit to pass through the wall? If not, Sorry about that. Such a shame. But we have a dividend of peace, right?

So what was "Oslo"

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 8:58pm.

[Still have no control over their own land and laws. ]

Yes they do!

[roads which settlers can travel on, but which Palestinians cannot travel on]

Because they tend to shoot at and kill Israelis.

Peace Dividend

Submitted by Q on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 9:17pm.

As we have yet to seriously attemot peace, it is hardly surprising there is no peace dividend.
As I have said on other occassions we are playing the hard-line Zionists game and helping them to achieve Greater Israel. There was once a massive peace lobby in Israel, it has now disappeared and it is our fault. Netanyahu benefits everytime a sniper shoots down an Israelis woman and child, or a bomb explodes in a busy market or another rocket or mortar lands on some Israeli town. None of these acts of violence have ever achieved any progress toward a viable Palestinian state.
The wall is dreadful in two ways. One the well known issue of dividing up bits of Palestinian land. The second the constraint upon free movements of people across the border which is having an even more damaging impact. Before the wall and the violence that led to it, thousands upon thousands of Palestinians went to work in Israel. The money they brought back kept the economy vital. It also brought them into contact with ordinary Israelis and of course there was dialogue. In addition Israelis used to cross over to shop in the West Bank where fruit and vegetables were cheaper. This too had a beneficial effect upon the economy and meant that israelis had ocntact with ordianry Palestinians. Now there is a collapsed economy with horrendous levels of un & underemployment and no daily dialogue between Israelis & Palestinians.
However much we may want the wall to go, persuading the Israelis to dismantle it will require us to demonstrate that there is no threat to them. If the wall is destoyed or simply moved to the Green Line will allow Palestinians to move around their lands. But there is at present very little indication that were the wll to disappear that Palestinians could go back to work in Israel, and that frankly has a far more serious and wider impact upon everyone than a few farmers having to take a lengthy detour to manage their olive groves.

You are correct Abbas and the PNA do not have a mandate, and that Hamas should be the civilian government. But! If Hamas were to become the government then any pretence of the possibility of peace would be ended permanently and frankly it would probably mark then end of a potential Palestinian state. If the Palestinian nation intends, by majority will, to pursue the goals of Hamas then it must accept the consequences.
The Palestinian nation needs to embark on a serious and informed debate about the future and understand the consequences of each decision.

Q. Are you serious? I'm calling you out. Hasbara.

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 4:03pm.

Jerusalem: The status of Jerusalam was decided by UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Israel explicitly accepted this resolution in its declaration of independence. and then illegally took Jerusalem in a war of aggression. The UN is in agreement about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force.

Settlers: The settlers are illegally, erm, settled on land which does not belong to Israel. This is illegal under international law. Israel has no right to allow them to settle there and the Palestinians are under no obligation to accept them as partners on the land. Given that the land that the settlers are living on is illegally stolen, how would you propose that Israel recompense the Palestinians they threw off the land?

Massacres: Own up to the past? Do you mean to say that the massacres that you talk about (I'd love for you to elaborate on which events you specifically mean, but that is entirely besides the point) somehow justify the belligerent attitude of the State of Israel towards international law? Yes. Jews have been persecuted. so to have Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Maoists, and so on and so forth. What other countries should be able to hark back to some past historical event from centuries ago which people alive now were never at and can never fully understand as justification for oppression against whomever they chose?

Learn from Zionism: Israel is most certainly not a democracy. It is certainly not a secular democracy and it is only successful financially and politically because it has a sugar daddy in the US to bail it out of tricky situations and to give it billions in cash and free military equipment. The Arab nations have all been trying to get a "slice of that pie" since Mossadegh was thrown out of Iran. Mmmm. Tasty American Pie. Sweet and sticky.

Stop Propogating Hatred: Could you provide evidence that Mein Kampf is a best seller in West Bank and Gaza? Are you saying that Israel allows Mein Kampf through the illegal siege into Gaza, the population of which has an average age of about 15? Are you for real? The State of Israel generates hatred all on its own, perhaps it should stop killing innocent children and mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters in front of each other using ever more effective means. What would you do if members of your family were driven from their homes before you were even born and you grew up in a camp where all you knew with certainty was that the land and home which your parents owned was stolen by Israel? The cycle of hatred will begin to end once Israel lives up to its responsibilities under international law.

Start Being Independent: As above, I note that Israel is certainly not independent as it relies heavily upon the US for monetary and military aid, coupled with political power to veto tricky UN resolutions. To suggest that Palestine should start being independent depends wholly and totally upon Israel ending its illegal occupation and allowing the Palestinians to get on with the business of self-governance.

Use Non-Violence: Palestinian activists who advocate purely non-violent and political remedies to the situation are rounded up and placed in prison. In fact, Hamas pursued a policy of non-violence against Israel for months before December 2008 and was rewarded with an all-out assault on Gaza after retaliating against an Israeli extra-judicial assassination of Gazans. Even Mark Regev does not deny these facts.

Explicitly Recognise Their Humanity: There are many Jewish organisations both within and without Israel who help Palestinians. And you are right, we don't hear enough about them. But your premise is so flawed as to be unconscionable. It is the responsibility of an Occupying Power, as Israel is in the Golan Heights, West Bank and Gaza Strip, to take care of the people it is occupying. It is not the role of the occupied people to beg and thank the Israelis for small trinkets of mercy, it is the Israeli moral duty and duty under international law to ensure that the Palestinian Human Rights are not abused.

I'm done here. I can't believe that this twisted logic was allowed to stand on MPAC for so long without question.

LOL. Twisted logic

Submitted by The Real BB on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 4:40pm.

LOL. Twisted logic indeeeeeed.

I love destroying arguments based on falsehoods

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 8:55pm.

[Jerusalem: The status of Jerusalam was decided by UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Israel explicitly accepted this resolution in its declaration of independence. and then illegally took Jerusalem in a war of aggression. The UN is in agreement about the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force.]

On what date did the Arab accept Res 181? Res 181 is a resolution that defines a legal status between the two parties named as being awarded independent states. The Arabs & Jews. SInce the Arabs rejected Res 181 then it has no validity. The only thing that is valid is that the State of Israel was created and recognised.

In 1948 it was the Arabs who ILLEGALLY annexed Jerusalem Jordan did it.

In 1967 in a defensive War Israel regained its capital city, Jerusalem.

Where is the "war of agression"?

[Settlers: The settlers are illegally, erm, settled on land which does not belong to Israel.]

And it doesn't belong to Arabs either. West Bank and Gaza must come under the original Mandate For Palestine whereby this was land on which Jews and Arabs were allowed to settle. No other legality over West Bank and Gaza exists under any UN Mandate or Resolution. Its not Arab land because they rejected it.

If the settlements are ALL illegal then do you think that they will become part of the Palestinian State or shall we swap by expelling Israeli Arabs to accommodate Jewish refugees from West Bank?

Israel has NOT "acquired land" this is land on which both Jews and Arabs are allowed to live. I don't actually think there is a UN Resolution that calls settlements "illegal" (you may correct me).

If they were 'illegal' then how come there has never been a sanction against Israel for them? Reason, because "International Law" that is quoted hasn't actually been tested.

Falsehoods schmaleshoods!

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 7:32pm.

Q, you ask:

"On what date did the Arab accept Res 181?"

Once Israel agreed to resolution 181, as it did in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, it was illegal to then extend the land of Israel beyond the borders defined by Resolution 181.

Israeli Declaration of Independence stated that:

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel."

also, in the Declaration of Independence, Israel committed to being

"... faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

So you see, the fact that the Arabs did not accept Resolution 181 is of no consequence, because Israel voluntarily accepted it and accepted the principles of the charter of the United Nations.

UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 tells us of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

You assert that having voluntarily accepted the legitimacy of Resolution 181 and the legitimacy of the UN, Israel then has the right to ignore that legitimacy?

I don't think it works like that. But if you have any firm evidence from international lawyers, or from the UN, then present it and have done. Otherwise, you must concede that Israel is in breach of the very laws and rules which it has promised to uphold.

Pat Condell lover still wrong

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 8:46pm.

I just LOVE it!

["THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel."]

WHICH WAS CONDITIONAL ON THE ARABS ACCEPTING IT!!!!!

Since the Arabs did NOT accept it and started a war against Israel then the land which the Arabs retained cannot be said to be under Res 181 BECAUSE THEY REJECETED IT!!!!!! Do you get that?????

As far as they were concerned they were entitled to all of it and they aren't. Hence, what the Arabs rejected must come under some legally recognised framework. Is it a recognised Palestinian State? NO!!!!

If it were then the UN having constructed Res 181 would have simply said that the land which was not Israel was therefore an Arab state. They didn't and its NOT!!!

In fact, the Arabs in the war of 1948 stole land that would have been Israeli land. If the UN said that Jerusalem was an "International City" then the Arabs (jordan) certainly refused to recognise that in their annexation of Jerusalem and the ethnic cleansing of Jews by forcing them out and systematically destroying their property. places of worship and antiquity.

If anyone has bee "ethnically cleansed" it is the Jews of Israel/Palestine.

You just ain't got it and you can't win this one.

Conditional? Because you're worth it!

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Fri, 20/11/2009 - 10:53am.

Firstly, I reject the assertion that the fact that the Arabs - as was their legal right to do so - rejected resolution 181, and that Israel, having accepted the resolution as part of it's declaration of independence, then had the right to reject the resolution later on.

If that really is the case, please provide a legal basis for your argument. If you are right, what is happening between Palestine and Israel is a civil war that has been going on for over 60 years.

As it stands, United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 proves you wrong, as it explicitly refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

As Israel was the only party to Resolution 242 that acquired territory by war, it can only mean that Israel is under an obligation to stick at least to the borders accepted pre-Resolution 242.

The fact is that Palestinians have accepted on multiple occasions, most recently this week, the existence of the state of the State of Israel. As far back as the early 1993 the PLO had explicitly accepted the State of Israel in a letter from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/Israe...

It is in fact the State of Israel that does not accept the rule of law, nor the concept of Human Rights.

I say again. Israel explicitly accepted the offer of Resolution 181. It did not matter that the Arabs rejected it. The rejection of Resolution 181 by the Arabs did not automatically entitle Israel to extend itself beyond the borders defined by Resolution 181, and if you think that is the case then there is currently a civil war going on in Palestine right now as both parties rejecting Resolution implies a free-for-all land grab, does it not?

As for ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel/Palestine. I can't see how that can be the case. Ethnic cleansing can only be accomplished by a deliberate and systematic means. How is it possible then that Jews are being systematically cleansed from Israel/Palestine when they have one of the most powerful armies in the world to protect them and they avowedly Jewish Israeli government (a government is not democratic if it is not secular by the way) owns the (stolen) land upon which they live?

Patcondell, I haven't as yet

Submitted by The Real BB on Fri, 20/11/2009 - 9:01pm.

Patcondell, I haven't as yet responded to you because your initial post was so ridiculous that it didn't deserve a retort. Since then your posts have approached a much more adequate quality even overtaking that of you peers here at MPAC.

Unfortunately, just because you argue coherently and without resorting to abuse, you still are either a liar or are ignorant to the facts.

I'll pick up on one point in your post:

"The fact is that Palestinians have accepted on multiple occasions, most recently this week, the existence of the state of the State of Israel."

This is what is communicated to western media outlets and Israel. However, what they tell other Arab nations and the Palestinian people is pretty much the opposite of this.

Arafat spoke of peace to the west and of wiping Israel off the map to his own people. The charters of Hamas and Fatah both call for the destruction of Israel. So whichever entity takes control of Palestine their line on Israel is already predetermined.

I can provide evidence of all this if you wish, but you know I am correct.

Regarding Mein Kampf it is a bestseller all over the arab world, not just in Palestine:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388161/Mein-Kampf-for-sale-in-Ar...

I realise that this post is so full of fantasy

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 9:07pm.

whypatcondellisntfunny, you have got so many things wrong its a waste of time refuting them. Its like trying to prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese 100 years ago.

Mein Kampf best-seller http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Articles/2000/Hitler%20is%20a%20Youth%...

When you can't even get a basic fact right then what hope for you.

Waste of space!

BTW Pat Condell is HILARIOUS!!!

Anonymous Cow

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 12:33pm.

You say I can't even get a 'basic fact' right and yet you use a single Israeli government source to prove that Mein Kampf is a 'bestseller' amongst Palestinians when the world can see that there is an illegal siege that would certainly block this kind of material.

Additionally, the (biased) source you use quotes no direct evidence other than to say that some unidentified booksellers claim Mein Kampf is a bestseller. Why doesn't the IDF, in it's innumerable illegal incursions into Occupied Territories bring publish evidence of confiscated books. The technology is available. If the book really is a bestseller, take a camera crew into some random houses and find a few copies.

This is clearly an attempt to link Palestinian Arabs (in the eyes of Apartheid Israel, this means anybody who is not a Jew) with Nazism in order to discredit them and their legitimate claim to humans rights and self-determination.

When the Nazis war machine was defeated we did not then attempt to ethnically cleanse the whole of Germany in revenge. Why, then, should Israel be entitled to pursue an ethnic cleansing policy against Palestinians?

Pat Condell lover is still in fantasy

Submitted by Anonymous Cow on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 8:01pm.

[Additionally, the (biased) source you use quotes no direct evidence other than to say that some unidentified booksellers claim Mein Kampf is a bestseller. Why doesn't the IDF, in it's innumerable illegal incursions into Occupied Territories bring publish evidence of confiscated books. The technology is available. If the book really is a bestseller, take a camera crew into some random houses and find a few copies]

Tne you accuse Israel of denial of freedom of speech. Israel has no interest in seizing books, even Mein Kampf. But then the history of Palstinians as friends of teh Nazis gose back a long way to Al Husseini, confidant of Adof Hitler and according to testimony at Nuremberg an "instigator of The Holocaust". He' was a Palestinian Wanted Nazi War Criminal.

When you say [This is clearly an attempt to link Palestinian Arabs (in the eyes of Apartheid Israel, this means anybody who is not a Jew) with Nazism in order to discredit them and their legitimate claim to humans rights and self-determination.]

Yup! The link is clear. Even down to the Palestinian terrorist who proudly calimed he had changed his name to Hitler.

Egypt hosted several Nazi War criminals and the Arab armies still copy the Nazi goose-step.

[Why, then, should Israel be entitled to pursue an ethnic cleansing policy against Palestinians?]

They aren't. Not even Jimmy Carter says that Israel is an apartheid state. (he he!)

Anonymous Cow

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Fri, 20/11/2009 - 10:28am.

Anonymous Cow, you have produced no independent sources who can prove that Mein Kampf is a 'bestseller' in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or even anywhere else. Therefore, I can only assume that your argument is invalid and based on falsehood until such time as you deliver any kind of evidence to the contrary other than your own opinion seemingly plucked from thin air.

It is proven that Israel denies basic human rights, what does a little thing like freedom of speech mean to Israel? Well, quite a lot actually. This year, the Israeli Democracy Institute studied freedom of the press in Israel, and discovered that it was not a free press as any normal democracy would have. The Israeli press, by Israeli standards is only "partly free" making Israel one of the worst performing democracies for free speech even by it's own measures! Go take a look at the proof here, Page 38 of the 2009 Israeli Democracy Index:

http://www.idi.org.il/sites/english/PublicationsCatalog/Documents/Democr...

You will also see that the study shows that whilst a majority of people seemingly support free speech, a whopping 58% of Israelis would support a ban on "harsh criticism of Israel". How democratic. What wonderful freedom of speech!

You say that there is a clear link between all Palestinians and Nazi sympathy? That is clearly the a most ugly form of racism. Seeking to demonise an entire population both in the past and in the here and now as a means to justify a brutal and illegal repression of them. We know that this is what the Nazis did to Jews, and it is what the Israelis are now doing to the Palestinians.

Whilst we can agree that anybody who knowingly supported the Nazi regime whilst they committed genocide against an innocent civilian population is clearly in the wrong you must also surely understand that the basis for the collaboration of a minority of Palestinians with the Nazis was not because of a deep-seated hatred of Jews - as Muslims, Christians and Jews have lived together in Palestine for long before Zionism grew strong - but because of a growing fear that their land was going to be stolen from under them. It seems that in retrospect, the fear they held were well founded.

You speak of Amin al-Husayni as if he were the only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. What about his predecessor, Kamil al-Husayni, who before he died actually met Chaim Weizmann. Weizman reportedly made a speech saying that Arabs and Jews should work together to achieve "joint autonomy". Amin al-Husayni took this to mean that they would create a single country, together, though it could be argued that Weizmann was talking about each having their own state. Nonetheless, Amin al-Husayni, who was Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time recounted an hadith, saying "Our rights are your rights and your duties our duties".

The Russian army also goose steps. Perhaps they are Nazi also? The Jordanian Army Marching band use that well known Jordanian instrument, the bagpipe, perhaps they are influenced by William Wallace?

What Are You Trying to Prove?

Submitted by Q on Mon, 23/11/2009 - 11:08am.

You quote & provide a link for a Zionist institution that has been critical of Israel and states that the majority of Israelis think that it should be a crime to criticise Israel. So what? It only shows that the Israelis are capable of self-examination and criticism. It does not prove that Israel is comparatively worse than the neighbouring states.
In fact in Turkey, the freest of the regional states, it is a crime to criticise government institutions. For the rest of the region it is even worse. The reality is that we latch on to Israeli self-criticism and overlook the parlous state of human rights across the region.

There is no doubt that early liberal Palestinian nationalists did support the idea of collaboration in a joint venture between the nascent Palestinian nation and Zionism. However this was short-lived and it was the reactionaries like Amin Al-Husseyni that killed off any such opportunity. Upon assuming the post of Mufti he used the resources of the Waqf to kill and intimidate these "collaborationists".
His subsequent actions specifically targetting Jews, without any regard to whether they were Zionists or not, permanently ended any opportunity to avoid war. Amin Al-Husseyni held violent anti-Jewish views long before the Nazis were elected into power in Germany, he simply found refuge among them during WW2.
Amin Al-Hussyni together with other reactionairies sought a return to the pre-1856 legal position where the feudal ruling class and the Waqf controlled everything, and denied non-Muslim and women basic rights. The idea that prior to Zionism Palestine was some idyllic entity characterised by happy co-existance is a fantasy. It was corrupt and violent, and in a parlous social and economic condition.
You quote Sabra-Shatilla and Deir Yassin. Yet you interestingly fail to mention earlier Muslim massacres of Jews, especially the 1929 Hebron Massacre organised by Amin Al-Husseyni.
Amin Al-Husseyni was liability - a corrupt & incompetant leader and wanted war criminal. In the 1936 Arab Uprising, so appalling was the conduct of Al-Husseyni's gangs that ordinary Palestinian Muslim farmers turned informer to get rid of them. Al-Husseyni's incompetence led the Palestinian people into the Nakhba.

Why Owning Up Is Important

Submitted by Q on Wed, 18/11/2009 - 11:03pm.

I do not believe that one act of violence justifies another, and thus the vast number of major and minor acts of violence committed by Palestinians and other Muslims do not provide any justification for the horrendous acts by the Israelis against present day Palestinians.
However let us put aside this and face reality. We live in a world where there is action and reaction, and justification for violence using collective past experience.

Image for one moment that you are an Israeli Jew. You read the records of the 1929 Hebron Massacre of Jews by Muslims, especially Robert Cafferata's report.
You perhaps ask a Palestinian acquaitance about it, and he or she denies it or justifies it on the basis of what some other Jews somewhere else did allegedly.
Or you look through Palestinain accounts of the period and there is no record of this event.
Then the Palestinians accuse the Israelis of massacre and inhumanity.
So how do you respond 1) "Yes, we Israelis are criminals" 2) "FO! What about the Jews you killed in 1929? Don't start accusing us until you own up to your own crimes".

Here is part of Cafferata's testimony.

'On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheriff from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him.

If you were an Israeli Jew how would you feel about this?

Owning up to our own actions is part of growing up. It is also a means of deflating the propoganda of the other side. If you want to aid the Hasbara campaign then please continue lying about the past, each lie is like another bullet in the heart of palestinian child. Hasbara feeds upon Palestinian and Muslim dishonesty, idiots roll out accusing the Jews of crimes and claiming their own innocence. The Hasbara machine simply turns around and presents irrefutable proof of past Palestinian crimes and suddenly the Palestinian case against the Jews looks very weak.

Just not Good Enough Q

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 6:20pm.

I do not believe that on act of violence justifies another either.

You talk about a "vast number" of violent acts by Palestinians (Muslims and Christians lest we forget!) against Israel, and I agree, it is not acceptable to attack civilians. But the fact remains that Israel, as an Occupying Power (did I mention that enough times yet?) bears the entire responsibility for the Human Rights for all the Palestinians.

No Palestinian has any obligation towards Israel. Netanyahoo, not Abbas, is the ultimate ruling political and military authority over the Palestinians.

With regards to "owning up for acts". That is a double edged sword and you know it cuts both ways. What about Sabra? Shatila? Deir Yassin? But even those events are mere side-issues. Much more important than talking about past crimes which can never be changed is highlighting the fact that Israel is demonstrably still systematically committing war crimes and crimes against humanity today in a land they illegally occupy.

Of course there is no reason not to make apologies for the past when peace is made. Both sides are hurt. Both sides are angry. But addressing the past crimes of both sides is not now as important as addressing the future.

How can you reasonably expect any sort of national apology or reconciliation under the current circumstances? I could understand it if there was a kind of Truth and Reconciliation Commission convened after Israel has withdrawn from illegally Occupied Territories, but to expect anything before then is ridiculous. Truth and Reconciliation took place in South Africa only after apartheid was dismantled. Why should the Palestine/Israel situation by any different than that?

Few Palestinians alive will be able to "own up" to a crime committed in 1929. But like Australia and Britain has recently done for immorally sending children from Britain to Australia, it may be possible for Palestinians (Remember, Muslims Christians and Jews can be and are Palestinians!) to apologise in retrospect for what other regimes did. But the thing about Australia and Britain is that they are independent sovereign states with a democratically elected government who have a mandate to make proclamations on behalf of their people. No such authority exists in Palestine for the Palestinians. If you want an apology that has any weight, that can only come after the Palestinians have united behind an independent and freely and democratically elected government. No? To demand any kind of national consensus on the matter before that is a nonsensical pre-requisite clearly designed to stall the "peace process" rather than strengthen it.

By the way. Even in the midst of barbarity and slaughter, there can be found brotherhood between Jews and Arabs, having looked up the story of Hebron and Cafferata, I note that you failed to add a small detail:

"About 435 Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. They were hidden by 28 families who risked their lives to save the Jews."
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm

So yes, some people act indefensibly, and other do their best for their fellow man, regardless of religion. Hebron demonstrates that some people show solidarity with each other, and others seek to cynically distort perceptions and magnify differences for their own agenda.

You present something of a sophisticated case Q, but it your sophistry does not stand up to scrutiny. For instance. You appear to have have accused me of lying about the past and yet you have not supported this accusation with anything approaching fact. You also present something of an emotional tug at the heartstrings, that "each lie [itself insinuating multiple lies on my part] is like another bullet in the heart of a Palestinian child". It is good to know that you concede that Palestinian children are being killed in cold blood, but you should also be aware that such crude and cynical metaphors will not stop me expressing my thoughts.

I do think of the children of Palestine, and Israel, that is why I take the stand that I do.

Your position is no different than that of any of the past Israeli governments, and it boils down to this:-

"If the Palestinians do X, and Y, and Z, then in return the Israelis will do A, and B, and C."

The problem is that for various reasons, this has not worked. What happened to the Oslo Accords? I'm not saying that Palestinians are utterly blameless, but I say again, and I'm sure you will ignore, that the Palestinians are not an illegally Occupying Power.

It is Israel alone that has responsibility for the safety and security and Human Rights of the Palestinian people. It is Israel alone that has a legal responsibility to withdraw from Occupied Territory.

Once Israel has fulfilled it's obligations under international law can the political and security situation be stabilised. But no. Israel will not withdraw from illegally held territory and it will not halt construction of illegal settlements, so it keeps dragging out the peace process - making different demands, changing the timetable, ignoring agreements - and I'm not saying that there are no Palestinians to blame, but there is only so much they can do.

The PLO recognised Isreal.
The PLO renounced violence.
The PLO signed the Oslo Accords.

What did they get in return? Israel has all never given up its illegal strangle hold on the West Bank, or Gaza Strip.

The word "systematically" is critical here as the Palestinians clearly have not the resources or ability to fight any kind of "war". Israel on the other hand has one of the most powerful armies in the world. The size of Israeli military capability is vastly disproportional to it's size, you will say that this is for defensive reasons, but if Israel was not illegally occupying territory which does not belong to it then it would not need to "defend" it so hard.

Palestine does not have the means to "systematically" do anything.

Israel cannot expect Palestinians to guarantee the security of borders with Israel if Israel keeps systematically imprisoning and torturing democratically elected Palestinian politicians and peaceful activists and systematically killing Palestinian police and systematically expanding illegal settlements and systematically denying human rights to non-Jews.

Yes. There is irrefutable proof that Palestinians have committed crimes. Nobody can deny that. But those Palestinians who have done so, have only done so out of frustration and desperation. But the fact that some Palestinians have committed crimes does not give Israel the right to break international law. So no. The Palestinian case against Israel (not "the Jews" because Israel is not "the Jews". Israel is a sovereign state on this earth which has no authority to speak for "the Jews" and you will find that to be the opinion of a lot of Jewish folk.) is very strong. So strong in fact that the only defence against it is to ignore the systematic illegal occupation and human rights abuse by Israel that is happening today and to constantly attack Palestinians and their supporters drowning them under a barrage of bullets or extraneous arguments which consistently side-step the real issues.

I take issue with you presenting this as a "Jews" against "Arabs" situation, when in fact, there is awful lot of co-operation between Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Sikhs and so on, both within and without Israel and Palestine. This co-operation seeks to highlight and document the ongoing situation.

The Hasbara Machine, as you call it, seeks to tilt opinion in favour of Israel by justifying what Israel does whilst stripping events of the context of Israeli illegal occupation and settlement and ethnic cleansing of pieces of land which do not belong to Israel.

Occupying power

Submitted by colonel blimp on Fri, 20/11/2009 - 1:22am.

Under the terms of the 'Geneva Convention' Israel is NOT an occupying power. No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it is still a lie!

Taking Responsibility

Submitted by Q on Fri, 20/11/2009 - 4:17pm.

I was not attempting to exonerate the Zionists for their crimes, but attempting to put across their perceptions and sources of anger.
Yes the Israeli government does have some responsibility for the sitauation and Netanyahu is more powerful in some ways than Abbas, but not entirely.
The Palestinian nation must start to take responsibility for itself and progress away from the role of victimised aid-junkie.
The greatest vulnerability for the Palestinians today is not the IDF but the worry that another Israeli govt might suddenly agree to a literal Arab interpretation of 242 and suddenly pull out. The Palestinian are so dependent physically and mentally upon the occupation that they simply do not have the where withal to run their own society.
If the Zionists pulled out unilaterally and returned to the May 67 position (not likely I know) where would the water, elecdtricity, UN aid, etc etc come from. Even the mobile telephones would stop functioning.
Since Oslo the PNA has failed to develop a functioning civilian government capable fo taking over from the occupation forces. If the Zionist pulled out there would be massive void and chaos with all sorts of fratricidal violence.

I do not believe that one act

Submitted by whypatcondellisntfunny on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 6:25pm.

I do not believe that one act of violence justifies another either. You talk about a "vast number" of violent acts by Palestinians (Muslims and Christians lest we forget!) against Israel, and I agree, it is not acceptable to attack civilians.

But the fact remains that Israel, as an Occupying Power (did I mention that enough times yet?) bears the entire responsibility for the Human Rights for all the Palestinians.

No Palestinian has any obligation towards Israel. Netanyahoo, not Abbas, is the ultimate ruling political and military authority over the Palestinians.

With regards to "owning up for acts". That is a double edged sword and you know it cuts both ways. What about Sabra? Shatila? Deir Yassin?

But even those events are mere side-issues.

Much more important than talking about past crimes which can never be changed is highlighting the fact that Israel is demonstrably still systematically committing war crimes and crimes against humanity today in a land they illegally occupy.

If you want an apology that has any weight, that can only come after the Palestinians have united behind an independent and freely and democratically elected government. No? To demand any kind of national consensus on the matter before that is a nonsensical pre-requisite clearly designed to stall the "peace process" rather than strengthen it.

"About 435 Jews survived by hiding with their Arab neighbors. They were hidden by 28 families who risked their lives to save the Jews." http://www.zionism-israel.com/Hebron_Massacre1929.htm

You present something of a sophisticated case Q, but it your sophistry does not stand up to scrutiny. For instance. You appear to have have accused me of lying about the past and yet you have not supported this accusation with anything approaching fact. You also present something of an emotional tug at the heartstrings, that "each lie [itself insinuating multiple lies on my part!] is like another bullet in the heart of a Palestinian child". It is good to know that you concede that Palestinian children are being killed in cold blood, but you should also be aware that such crude and cynical metaphors will not stop me expressing my thoughts.

I do think of the children of Palestine, and Israel, that is why I take the stand that I do.

Your position is no different than that of any of the past Israeli governments, and it boils down to this:-

"If the Palestinians do X, and Y, and Z, then in return the Israelis will do A, and B, and C."

The PLO recognised Isreal.
The PLO renounced violence.
The PLO signed the Oslo Accords.

What did they get in return? Israel has never given up its illegal strangle hold on the West Bank, or Gaza Strip.

Palestine does not have the means to "systematically" do anything. Israel cannot expect Palestinians to guarantee the security of borders with Israel if Israel keeps systematically imprisoning and torturing democratically elected Palestinian politicians and peaceful activists and systematically killing Palestinian police and systematically expanding illegal settlements and systematically denying human rights to non-Jews.

Yes. There is irrefutable proof that Palestinians have committed crimes. Nobody can deny that. But those Palestinians who have done so, have only done so out of frustration and desperation in the face of an illegal occupation. But the fact that some Palestinians have committed crimes does not give Israel the right to break international law. So no. The Palestinian case against Israel (not "the Jews" because Israel is not "the Jews". Israel is a sovereign state on this earth which has no authority to speak for "the Jews" and you will find that to be the opinion of a lot of Jewish folk.) is very strong. So strong in fact that the only defence against it is to ignore the systematic illegal occupation and human rights abuse by Israel that is happening today and to constantly attack Palestinians and their supporters drowning them under a barrage of bullets or extraneous arguments which consistently side-step the real issues.

Palestenians should not be left alone

Submitted by Cosa_Nostra on Tue, 17/11/2009 - 1:35pm.

The post asks a lot about Palestinians, but we seem to fail to consider our responsibilities. As you are aware, their only choice is to comply to racist policies of the west and Jews. Other than asking for more lenient treatments i.e being allowed to walk free in their ghettos without being shot at by a Jew sniper, there is not much left for them.

On the other hand, Muslims need to recognise the land grab my Jews and Christians has its own implications which requires us to embark upon similar policies to counter them. Turkey for example is now considering providing water supplies to racist Christians and Jews while Muslims die of thirst in Africa.

Can we not think of ourselves first, without having to serve other peoples interests like slaves?