Featured Posts
- Israeli PM Olmert: Divide Jerusalem, Return Golan, I Was Wrong
- Top 5 Controversies
- Top Ten Positive Actions YOU Can Take
- Sunni vs. Shia
- The Middle East – NSFCC (Not Safe for Casual Conversation)
- The Nuclear Middle East
- Palestinians and Israelis: Two States or One State?
- Ten Excellent Books and Sources on the Middle East
- Online Videos About the Middle East Conflict(s)
- What is Israel? What is Palestine?
Tags
- Palestine 17
- Israel 16
- About 4
- elections 3
- ranking project 3
- Iraq 3
- Acre 3
- McCain 2
- Human Rights 2
- news 2
Summary: the Palestinian Ranking Project
Published November 19, 2008 @ 08:46PM PST
For anyone showing up just now, this post is based on the three previous ones:
- Can We Rank Palestinian Organizations According to Extremism?
- Can We Rank Palestinian Groups Based on Acceptence of Israel?
- Can We Rank Palestinian Organizations Based on Attitude Towards the Right of Return?
We are playing with three issues where a group can get a rank of 1-5. The middle - 3 - is based on what we know to be the majority opinion of Palestinians in Palestine, based on public opinion research. Then we stake out two positions more in each direction. The higher the number, the more that position is likely to be seen as hostile to Israel. The lower the number, the more likely that Israel should be willing to be accommodating to that group, maybe even help strengthen it.
Can We Rank Palestinian Organizations Based on Attitude Towards the Right of Return?
Published November 19, 2008 @ 08:04AM PST
The Right of Return (RoR) is probably the most important, dearly held and emotion laden principle of the Palestinian national movement. Contrast that with the previous most important point (pre-1948) - don't let the Jews build a country on our land. It's symbolized by the key that many Palestinian families safeguard, mostly for homes that no longer exist.
Let's look at (and rank) the most spectrum of opinions on this issue, shall we?
Right of Return:
- Willing to give up RoR as a practical reality in exchange for an independent, viable state. Israel must still accept some responsibility in the form of compensation for the lands it stole.
- Accepts that insisting on RoR will prevent any peace deal, but is not willing to give up on it entirely. Ready to haggle - how about 100,000 Palestinians allowed back in over a few years. We can even call it 'family re-unification.' Israel must still accept some responsibility for the Naqba.
- The Right of Return is still sacred. Stop treating it like an 'issue' to be resolved and pushed out of the way. It's crucial. That being said, we can settle for something far short of full repatriation of millions of refugees. How about 500,000, over a number of years?
- The Right of Return is an individual as well as a collective right. It cannot be traded away by political leaders. It is the cornerstone. Better the Right of Return without peace than peace without the Right of Return.
- This conversation is pointless - still trying to eliminate the Zionist entity folks. After it's gone, everybody can come back. Including most Jews, who will actually be going back, not coming back.
To help us get acquainted with this scoring system, let's fit some groups into the mix:
- Palestinian Arabs who belong to Zionist parties in Israel, Sari Nusseibeh. Can't think of too many Palestinians who would actually advocate for this openly.
- Mahmoud Abbas's government, many, of not most of Fateh in the West Bank.
- Most Palestinians feel this way, with greater intensity in the refugee camps and outside of the West Bank. In terms of actions and votes, they often shift up or down a notch. Hamas, by tacitly accepting a two state solution, appears to be in this camp.
- al-Awda, some NGO's working primarily with refugees, radical Islamists outside of Palestine.
- Palestinian Islamic Jihad, sympathizers with Al-Qaida, original PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter.
It's been interesting trying to fit some U.S. groups here. There was a struggle within the U.S. peace camp over the Palestinian issue. Not over whether it was important, but the degree, and to what extent the U.S. peace camp should endorse more radical Palestinian political groups that emphasize the RoR. United for Peace and Justice chose to soft-peddle the issue, because they wanted to remain more broadly based. International ANSWER elevated the Palestinian issue as almost the co-equal of the Iraq war, and verbally bashed folks who wouldn't endorse the RoR.
In sheer numbers, it's safe to say that most supporters of the Palestinians are probably going to follow whatever the leaders in the West Bankand Gaza say will work. When that happens, the political opposition to a peace deal will continue to use the RoR as a wedge issue to try and get the radical left to denounce it.
The next post in this series will be about how we can use the rankings to see things we might not have seen before. Please do suggest groups not mentioned, and place them in this rubric. If a group isn't where you think it should be, say so!
Can We Rank Palestinian Groups Based on Acceptence of Israel?
Published November 18, 2008 @ 05:50AM PST
This is part two of a series. As I wrote yesterday, this is an idea. Might be half-baked! It comes from a desire to look at data on Israeli-Palestinian political positions and see it in new ways.
Today we examine the issue of accepting Israel as a Jewish state and the one vs. two state solution.
This is a proposed ranking. Please - challenge me on the specifics, and we'll see.
This is the second measure, and any given group gets a rank of 1-5. Remember, all of these assume that Israel ends to occupation and signs a peace agreement that creates (at least) a viable independent Palestinian state.
Can We Rank Palestinian Organizations According to Extremism?
Published November 17, 2008 @ 06:46PM PST
This is an idea, so bear with me. What if we developed a measure for evaluating Palestinian or pro-Palestinian organizations, based on their state positions, behavior and reputation? 'Extremism is such a clunky word to use in this context, so let's find another one.
What Jihadists Think of Aid Workers
Published November 17, 2008 @ 10:02AM PST
This is the same title as the post on my fellow cause blogger on the Humanitarian Relief beat. He writes below in his post:
Just came across an interesting Stratfor report released a few weeks ago, entitled Jihadist Ideology and the Targeting of Humanitarian Aid Workers.
Looking at Afghanistan and Somalia, the report explains why groups like the Taliban would want to target humanitarian organizations:
"The Taliban clearly see Afghanistan’s many foreign missionary and secular humanitarian aid organizations as supporting the Afghan government, and they believe that driving these organizations out of Afghanistan will be a blow to the government’s efforts to promote stability in the country."
Apparently, though, such attacks are "becoming a point of contention between jihadist ideologues and militant groups." Which is comforting, except for the fact that it's not.
There's more, but you have to go there for it.
Museum of Tolerance - or Provocation?
Published November 15, 2008 @ 07:53PM PST
The Museum of Tolerance is a project organized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center (MoT), to build a world class center in Jerusalem to teach the value of well, tolerance. A controversy has been brewing for sometime around its location, which is to be on the site of a former parking lot that was also a Muslim graveyard in the past.
The protagonists include Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and director of the Wiesenthal Center, the Muslim and Palestinian leaders of Jerusalem, the Israeli High Court, the Jerusalem municipality, progressive groups in Israel that support the Palestinian Jerusalemites, and the U.S. based international donors and supporters of the MoT.
Durragham Saif, the lawyer who brought the Islamic Court petition on behalf of three Palestinian families, Al Dijani, Nusseibeh and Bader Elzain, all of whom have members buried at the cemetery, said: "It's unbelievable, it's immoral. You cannot build a museum of tolerance on the graves of other people. Imagine this kind of thing in the [United] States or England. And this is the Middle East where events are sensitive. If this goes ahead in this way it is going to cause the opposite thing to tolerance." [from an article that appeared in The Independent.]
Jeff Halper on Israel/US Relationship - and Where He's Wrong
Published November 14, 2008 @ 05:48PM PST
Jeff Halper leads the Israeli Coalition Against House Demolitions, a group that began as a real coalition that included groups such as Rabbis for Human Rights but became, over time, it's own NGO under Halper's leadership. it's a group I respect for their willingness to confront the occupation with their bodies, protesting home demolitions and engaging in illegal - but morally just - rebuilding of homes. [Hmmm. I wonder if maybe it's the occupation that is illegal?]
His latest article is getting major play, as it addresses the U.S. - Israeli relationship on the dawn of the Obama administration.
