The inimitable Charles Johnson found a source with a Palestinian news report on the bombing.
The Al-Jazeera article in my previous post uses many of the same words to describe the situation as does the Palestinian report: "settlement" (mustawtanat ) for Gilo, and they both labeled the act as "amaliyya fida'iyya", which my dictionary interprets as an operation of "self-sacrifice for a cause or country"
The Al-Jazeera article also makes a careful distinction between West Jerusalem (Al-quds al gharbiya) and "Occupied Jerusalem" (Al-quds al-muhtala), presumably defined by the 1949-1967 border.
The full text of the IMRA piece that Charles cites has a quote from Hanan Ashrawi: "There is no solution except for Israel to withdraw from all our lands up to the border of June 4, 1967"
By saying "all our lands up to..." Ashrawi is making the same distinction about Jerusalem as Al-Jazeera is. But never mind that the 1949 border was the result of a military negotiation, not a political one, and is just as arbitrary as any another border. And never mind that nobody in the Arab world was willing to admit this particular arbitrary border until just a few years ago. There are many Jewish neighborhoods on the other side of the former border -- Ramot, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, French Hill and others -- that have been homes to thousands of Jerusalemites going back more than 30 years. My own father has lived in one of these neighborhoods for a decade.
It's inconceivable that any Israeli government, even one that agrees to dismantle some of the settlements, would ever agree to pull back from these neighborhoods. If Ashrawi thinks that there is "no solution" but to do so, then she has just volunteered to spend the rest of her life as an irrelevant stateless revolutionary.
In the meantime, I will continue to think about my friends and family as there are warnings about more attacks to follow, and I will continue to be angry at clueless sanctimonious busybodys like Cherie Blair and Laura Bush.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 18, 2002 12:17 PMI'm beginning to think that only all out war is the only way to bring a lasting peace. The Arabs simply have not, nor will they accept defeat from 1948, 1967 or 1973.
Posted by: Jim Burton on June 18, 2002 12:27 PMYou know, once upon a not-so-long-ago time, people understood why the Israelis occupied the West Bank. Prior to the 1967 War, after all, there was a recognition that Israel, w/ its "waist" only nine miles across, had NO strategic depth. Whether it required ALL of the West Bank, most folks understood that at least some of it was necessary for Israel's security.
When did folks suddenly conclude that that was no longer the case? At what point did folks suddenly decide that an Israel only nine miles across, faced with a Palestinian state at its narrowest point, would be secure?
And, for those who are concerned with stability, at what point does an insecure, nuclear-armed nation become an issue of concern? Do you really WANT Israel at a hair-trigger state of alert? That is, after all, what states w/o strategic depth often move towards.
Posted by: Dean on June 21, 2002 10:13 PM