That's a pretty one sided presentation, Mojo. You don't mention a single thing that Arabs and/or Palestinians did wrong.
You also forgot Lawrence of Arabia! How could you!? :P
I'm not going to try and fill in the gaps though. I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli, and I'm not even a zionist. Maybe somebody else will take it up.
Hey, by the way! You aren't as much younger than me as I thought 
You're old enough to remember all the crap that was going on in Lebanon during the 1980s. Maybe as a teenager you weren't paying all that much attention, though. I probably wouldn't have been either, if I hadn't been in the Marines.
Palestinians became palestinians following some advice from Ho chi min to Arafat, that he should sell his movement
as a national liberation movement. Palestine as a term is a non-sense, since it was given to the subjugated population by Romans to make people forget anything jewish, Judea etc.
Since Arabic became lingua franca in the region, the political/ethnic term Arab seems to be also a nonsense. To make it more precise, we could call them maybe
"Ho Chi Mins Arabic-speakers"
"Maybe as a teenager you weren't paying all that much attention, though."
Actually I remember very well the day the Marine barracks was bombed. It was about one year after we left Iraq for the last time, and it was a scary time for us; we were very poor and still had not secured Green Cards. I was in 8th grade, and I remember my history teacher trying to explain it to us. Americans were shocked, and so were my parents. The future was uncertain. I was aware, but I didn't fully understand the event. I had no idea who carried out the bombing. I didn't know how messed up the civil war in Lebanon was. I'm still learning about Lebanon. I've learned a lot especially in the last year. Thanks for adding your input, Craig.
"That's a pretty one sided presentation, Mojo. You don't mention a single thing that Arabs and/or Palestinians did wrong."
It's not my presentation. But it does mention the Arab riots of the early 20's in which dozens of Jews were killed.
Mojo,
Huh! You're not as young as I was thinking you were, either.
It's my understanding that the fighting within Palestine was taking place between both the Jewish and Palestinian militias. The Brits got fed up and ran out of money(after WWII) and gave up the mandate. Don't remember off hand the numbers of the populace. But I do tend to agree that that presentation is a little one sided.
-1886 hundreds of Arabs on Petah Tikva in an attempt to destroy it
-Arabs attack Jews in Tiberius in 1901, 1904 and 1911
[craig] "That's a pretty one sided presentation, Mojo. You don't mention a single thing that Arabs and/or Palestinians did wrong."
Uh, let's see.
Germans kill Jews. Jews decide they need a homeland and invade Palestine. The Israelis kill Palestinians; Palestinians resist and kill Israelis.
But according to Craig, the *Palestinians* are evil.
Go figure.
Yeah I've always been kind of amused when people try to justify the theft of Palestine by saying that Arabs killed Jews before 1948. As if that makes it ok to expel a million Palestinians from their homes and deny them a state for 59 years and counting. The Germans got the Marshall Plan to rebuild their country after WWII. The Palestinians LOST their country after WWII, apparently because Arabs killed Jews.
I agree, its stupid. An Israel should have been established in Germany, if anywhere. After all, THOSE are the people that made it necessary to have a Jewish homeland in the first place. WTF did the Palestinians do to anybody to suffer like this?
Look, at this point I think Israel is here to stay. Frankly I don't see anybody throwing them out. But the irony is, mere existence is not enough. They have to destabilise and subsume neighbouring states as well. Look at Fatah and Hamas, pitched in a fratricidal war with each other because outside powers will not accept the results of the elections they insisted on. The sickness must stop.
IA, here's an interesting article on Israel-Palestine:
Secret UN report condemns US for Middle East failures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
israel...2101677,00.html
The headline's a bit partisan, the rest is better.
Jews decide they need a homeland and invade Palestine.
Arabs decide they want to sell land and Jews buy it.
But I've done this to death over at Zeyads. You can see the argument if you troll through his archives.
Mojo, do I have to point out to you that you are talking to a white South African about racism? :O
I've already pointed out that your presentation is comically one sided. That is probably why you chose it, instead of an accepted historical account. If that's the road you want to go down, more power to you. I'm not going to argue with you about it. I don't particularly care.
And unlike Bruno, I'm not going to engage in racist rants about an issue that has nothing to do with me.
Craig, if there's anything you see wrong or missing with this historical account, which was apparently quite acceptable at Indiana University, please point it out.
Mojo, just because a grad student wrote it to support a thesis, doesn't make it complete, or accurate. A thesis is a glorified personal opinion.
As for the document itself, it is entirely one sided, as I said. It is the Arab party line, verbatim. If that';s what you want to put store in, that's fine. Maybe a Jewish person or an Israeli (or even a zionist) will show up to argue it with you. There's too much wrong with it for me to even try.
" Jews decide they need a homeland and invade Palestine."
Yeah, that's what brought the Jews to the Holy Land for the first time. Yeah. Okay.
Try reading some history on the region first.
Add this to your timeline:
Palestine during World War II
"Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country."
Grand Mufti al-Husseini, Hitler's ally
K, if you want me to quote the idiot Grand Mufti al Husseini, I should also quote some famous Zionists:
In 1940, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department, which was responsible for the actual organization of settlements in Palestine, wrote:
"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left." [39]
Joseph Weitz elaborated upon the practical meaning of rendering Palestine "Jewish:"
"There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. [I] tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument: ...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish ...with a non-Jewish minority limited to fifteen percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 [and] it is entered in my diary." [40]
The "Koenig Report" stated this policy even more bluntly:
"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." [41]
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, declaimed: "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." [42]
These are the words of Uri Lubrani, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, in 1960: "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters." [43]
Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces stated:
"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel. ...Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." [44]
Eitan elaborated before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle." [45]
-Ralph Schoenman, The Hidden History of Zionism
I find this discussion about Israel / Palestine very disturbing because like this issue derailed the ME for 50 years, it does so with the people talking about Israel / Palestine.
Second, Iraqi Mojo, it's very harsh and mostly unfair to say: Jews couldn't unit to fight Nazism but Arabs in Palestine.
If pre-WWII jews would be mostly Zionists, certainly the Nazis couldn't kill 80 % of European Jews.
Then, WWII started with the invasion of Poland. IM, imagine you would spend summer time, holidays, and on the first day of school your neighbour invades your country - without warning just out of the blue. And the Germans started directly to kill every lawyer, priest and doctor in every village and town They wanted to kill the intelligetsia to the point that Polish people can only count to 500. Ask CZ about such stuff, surely he's got also a relative killed by Nazi brutality.
And Jews were tricked that things would turn out good. IM, maybe you should see "Schindler's list" where people were tricked to believe they got a "shower" and then were gassed.
I just want to say it'S A Bit harsh to say so.
Mojo, I can't find any of those quotes in a reputable source. Can you cite something that's reliable for us to look at? I searched for "Joseph Weitz" for instance, and both(!?) hits I got were for conspiracy sites.
BTW, I agree with Gilgamesh.
I got the quotes from Ralph Schoenman's book The Hidden History of Zionism. I'm not surprised he's quoted by sites that are considered to be conspiracy sites, but Schoenman is a respected author.
http://takingaimradio.com/hhz/ch04.htm
Gilgamesh, I have seen Schindler's List, I have read all about the Holocaust and of course it's terrible what happened to European Jews in WWII. But I don't see what that has to do with the Palestinians being treated like shit for the last half century. It's as if the Palestinians are being punished for what the Nazis did to the Jews.
We will continue to see problems in the middle east if we continue to pretend that Palestine does not exist, or that the Palestinians have been treated fairly, or that they really don't need a real contiguous independent state. You guys can ignore the problem of Palestine - that is your prerogative. I will not ignore it; I will continue to write about it. Just because Iraq is a mess now doesn't mean that the Palestinian issue should be ignored.
Why do you say he's a "respected author" - respected by who? I've never heard of him, and the title of the book itself is suspicious, don't you think?
From your link:
In 1947, there were 630,000 Jews and 1,300,000 Palestinian Arabs. Thus, by the time of the United Nations partition of Palestine in 1947, the Jews were 31% of the population. [38]
The decision to partition Palestine, promoted by the leading imperialist powers and Stalin’s Soviet Union, gave 54% of the fertile land to the Zionist movement.
This is misleading. The Jewish state was 40% of the land. Not 54% of the land. He tries to mask this by using a subjective term like "fertile land" - without defining where he's getting it from.
I don't consider 40% of the land going to 31% of the inhabitants grossly unfair. Do you? If you do, what would you say about the "land split" in Iraq by population? What about by resources (oil?)
Anyway, that's not an issue I want to debate, I'm just pointing out that the author seems deceptive, already, in the very first paragraph of the link you gave.
But before the state of Israel was established, the Irgun and Haganah seized three-quarters of the land and expelled virtually all the inhabitants.
This is also deceptive. The "State of Israel" was never formally established by the UN. The first Arab-Israeli began before that process was complete. To dig deeper into that, we need to establish who the aggressor was. Right? Because that is relevant when it comes to land occupied during a war.
We will continue to see problems in the middle east if we continue to pretend that Palestine does not exist
Does Kurdistan exist?
or that the Palestinians have been treated fairly,
Have Kurds been treated fairly?
or that they really don't need a real contiguous independent state.
Do Kurds need that?
And then maybe we should talk about Armenians. You know that the historic homeland of Armenians is Mount Ararat in present day Turkey, and not in the country that is called Armenia now, don't you? How would the Palestinians feel about being given a state elsewhere in the ME? Actually don't they already have one - Jordan? Why do Palestinians need two states, anyway? Well, that's for another day.
And then we should talk about so many other groups, in the middle east and in other places, who have lost their historical homeland.
The only difference I can see between Israel/Palestine and those others I named is that the Jews are involved.
@ Iraqi Mojo
I didn't mention Palestininas at atll, BTW.
I just objected to blame the Jews killed in chambers, raids or otherwise during WWII in Nazi-occupied territories from Tunisia up to Norvege or from the Island Channels up to the Caucasus, for being caught, lured, tricked or trapped and then exploited, mistreated and finally killed, and often in very cruel ways. And it wasn't only jews, but jews especially.
[bruno] Jews decide they need a homeland and invade Palestine.
[lynnette] Arabs decide they want to sell land and Jews buy it.
Lynnette, I refer to:
"Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000-400,000 dunums...are state domain which the Israeli government took over from the mandatory regime. The JNF and private Jewish owners possess under two million dumums. Almost all the rest [i.e. about 88% of the 20,255,000 dunums within the armistice lines] belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The JNF, however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.
(Jewish National Fund, Jewish Villages in Israel, p.xxi, quoted in Lehn and Davis, The Jewish National Fund, Keegan Paul International, 1988, page 132; parenthetical comments by Lehn & Davis)"
[craig] "Mojo, do I have to point out to you that you are talking to a white South African about racism?"
Coming from a neo-nazi troll, that baseless accusation is a bit rich.
[craig] "To dig deeper into that, we need to establish who the aggressor was. Right? Because that is relevant when it comes to land occupied during a war."
Oh, gee, that'll be hard.
The Palestinians were living there. The Jews came from Europe. Gosh, I wonder WHO the aggressors were.
It's a real stumper, alright.
[IA] “I have read all about the Holocaust and of course it's terrible what happened to European Jews in WWII. But I don't see what that has to do with the Palestinians being treated like shit for the last half century. It's as if the Palestinians are being punished for what the Nazis did to the Jews.”
E X A C T L Y
[exile] “I just objected to blame the Jews killed in chambers”
Quite right, what happened was terrible. So, punish the guilty. Build Israel in Germany. WTF did the Palestinians have to do with this?
Actually there was a jewish group, directly after WWII, that wanted to kill 6 million Germans by poisoning the Rhine and other big rivers in Germany.
And there's even a Second "Israel" in the USSR called Birobidjan.
"Quite right, what happened was terrible. So, punish the guilty. Build Israel in Germany. WTF did the Palestinians have to do with this?
Bruno | 06.15.07 - 6:20 am | # "
That's ridiculous. That's like asking a hunter in a lions den who just watched 3/4th of his group get eaten to live next to a "newly tamed lion".
You're just crazy. Jews had lineage and history, as well as religous guidelines that brought them to the "Holy Land", not a hatred of Arabs and wanting to "steal land".
There were some like that, sure. But not all. And they didn't ALL just "show up there" after WW2. There were MANY, hundreds of thousands of them.
The Arabs fighting them today are not any people with a connection to this orginal conflict. They are people who are told that Jews mean less than humans, who drink the blood and steal the eyes of Arab children, and they largely just HATE THEM. Most wouldn't even know where their grandparents lived in Israel or if they sold it, or it was stolen.
As I recall, many who sold land to jews were killed by pan-arab nationalist.
----
I read an idea yesterday that I really liked. I want everyone's opinion on it.
Give West Bank to Jordan, and give Gaza to Egypt.
That helps in a couple respects. One, the Palestians don't have to "concede" to Jewish terms of the peace plan. Second, you have given land taken from the '48 war back to other countries. Third you've but the problem in the hands of countries that have treaties with Israel. Fourth, you don't have to worry about the "2 state solution" where you have a divided country. Fifth, those countries already are experiancing a horrible refugee crisis and this would give them land and resources to deal with it.
The bad part, would be giving up postions to countries that if were to turn hostile, could be compromising. Not to say that the Philidephia crossing is secure as is right now, or that smuggling for operations, if wanted, couldn't happen. Just that the Jewish nationals would denfinitely harp on this issue, of security, as a reason not to proceed (as if the "road map" could be revived).
Personally, I think it's got a 30% chance of working but who knows. Opinions?
"Give West Bank to Jordan, and give Gaza to Egypt."
I suppose that's better than giving it to Israel, because Israel evidently doesn't want to give the inhabitants of Gaza & WB any rights that most humans on earth are born with. But why shouldn't the Palestinians have their own country? And didn't Jordan and Egypt control the WB & Gaza before 1967? How did that work out? Why is it so difficult to establish an independent Palestinian state?
'Why do you say he's a "respected author" - respected by who? I've never heard of him, and the title of the book itself is suspicious, don't you think?' -Craig
He's respected by the left. I find nothing wrong with that. In case you haven't noticed, I have some 'leftists' views myself. I respect Schoenman. I respect anybody who dares to tell the truth that the establishment doesn't want to hear. I really don't understand the problem - it's the truth. What's wrong with telling the truth?? Oh of course I understand - it's the same reason many Americans didn't want to acknowledge the history of racism in America. Craig, eventually we Americans must confront the issue of Palestine with honesty and with a quest for true justice. That involved looking at what actually happened to the Palestinians and what is still happening to them. They still have no state, their economy is strangled, most of them are still living miserable lives because of what happened decades ago. Time to solve this problem, imo.
The title of Schoenman's book is PERFECT, because the history of Zionism has been hidden, especially in America. Many people have written about the history of what happened to the Palestinians, and many of them have been Jews. You probably haven't heard of Ilan Pappe either. You know who he is?
More on Ralph Schoenman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ral...Ralph_Schoenman
Looks like I'm not the only one who respects Mr. Schoenman.
Mojo: "We will continue to see problems in the middle east if we continue to pretend that Palestine does not exist"
Craig: "Does Kurdistan exist?"
Kurdistan SHOULD exist.
Mojo: "or that the Palestinians have been treated fairly,"
Craig: "Have Kurds been treated fairly?"
The Kurds SHOULD be treated fairly. All humans should be treated fairly
Mojo: "or that they really don't need a real contiguous independent state."
Craig: "Do Kurds need that?"
YES. You know what though? Even the Kurds are now allowed to vote in Iraqi elections. Do Palestinians who live in Gaza & WB vote in Israeli elections? Recently the Palestinians were allowed to vote for their own govt. Did Israel & the US accept those elections? Did Palestinians living in East Jerusalem get to vote in those elections?
Craig: "Why do Palestinians need two states, anyway?"
LOL! I've heard that one before. Yeah, 60% of Jordan's population is already Palestinian - those are the descendants of Palestinians who fled their homes in 48 & 67 and were not allowed to return. And you want the remainder of Palestinians living in the WB & Gaza (many of whom are original refugees) to also move to Jordan?? Damn, that's stupid. WOW
Yes, Craig, many peoples have been oppressed, denied statehood throughout the history of the world. It doesn't mean that the same should happen to Palestinians. If we Americans continue to have this mindset, the Arabs (and Europeans and many non-Americans) will continue to hate America, I'm afraid. DAMN!
"Do Palestinians who live in Gaza & WB vote in Israeli elections? "
Before the unlilater withdrawl the Israel government has allowed Arabs to vote in their elections if Israel citizens, yes. This is established by their "Basic Laws" I believe Arabs control 14 seats in parliment. One rule, however, is that no political party may be formed that refuses to recognize Israel.
"Recently the Palestinians were allowed to vote for their own govt. Did Israel & the US accept those elections? "
Well, would you give money, aid, and recognition to someone who wanted to kill you? Probably the same reasoning that Hamas uses to not recognize Israel however one side uses guns while the other witholds money.
"Did Palestinians living in East Jerusalem get to vote in those elections?"
Jerusalem was an international center and MOST were not Israeli citizens since they refused to recognize the state as they felt it would turn their back on the Palestian refugees who still hoped to return. Most of those Arabs were Beoudin Muslims (80%?) of Egyptian decent.
It's in the Israeli charter to give all citizens equal rights regardless of race, religion, or sex. Many, however, say this is not enforced with very glaring violations. I believe it's slowy getting better but I'm neither there nor that informed on current Israeli events.
Like you, I wish all people would be happy, live free, stop killing, and have equal rights. After 60 years, I don't see a "right of return" happening, maybe reparations but you'd be hard pressed to get the hardliners to give up a majority in the country while still having free elections to Arabs, it would lead to a non violent change in the Status Quo for them.
That and, now generations later, it's just as bad to kick out some decendant of a Eupropean Israeli from their home, born and raised their for someone else who a desendant of a family that use to live there. Their would be squabbling over who had the deed, or if the land was sold since the inhabitants moved there, the legal right of purchase of the land etc...
Unless they simply wanted the chance to live in Israel in which their immagration concerns to the economy that many would protect.
I just don't see the logistics of it happening, ever. I'm not in the business of saying one side is right and the other wrong. It's obvious that BOTH sides have done numerous bad things in their collective past. But to solve the problem is to best look for a pragmatic and fair solution.
You got any ideas that are realistic and not ideological?
Mojo,
Arabs hate Americans mostly because of their own impotence. If suddenly Palestine became a nation, most Arabs would continue hating the West and the Americans. Why? They keep losing wars, their economies are in bad shape, and they don't know if they want to return to the 7th century or give it a try in the 21st century. Instead of accepting the fact that the rest of the world is far ahead of them in science and technology and business, they look for an easy scapegoat and blame everyone else but themselves.
Japan was absolutely crushed in WWII. Hundreds of thousands of citizens dead and their economy completely moribund after they put everything into the war effort. They ACCEPTED that they were defeated, learned from their mistakes, and today are a world power (without having a drop of oil and very few other natural resources).
Throughtout the Middle East tyranny and despotism are common. Sorry, but that's the truth. And look at how the other Arabs treat the Palestinians. They treat them like dirt and make jokes about them while mouthing platitudes about the Palestinian cause.
*
Mojo,
We'll probably disagree on the Palestinian issue. Don't take it personally. It has a lot to do with where we come from. Some issues are almost impossible to see from the other person's point of view. I'm trying, but it's really difficult.
*
I suppose that's better than giving it to Israel, because Israel evidently doesn't want to give the inhabitants of Gaza & WB any rights that most humans on earth are born with.
No way. Really, it wouldn't be better at all. The human rights records of Egypt and Jordan toward their own people is worse than Israel treatment of the Palestinians. The Great Lie of the Middle East is that the worse problems are in Israel, when in fact the opposite is true. But Israel proper does have the most press freedoms in the middle east so we hear about Israel's abuses more because Israelis are free to criticize their government and other neighboring states allow their citizens to criticize Israel, but not their own governments.
If Gaza and the West Back were transfered to Egypt and Jordan, the Palestinians would still not have a Democracy, because these nations are not democracies. They still would have internal civil war without peaceful transfer of power. They still would not receive aid from the west. They still would have army operations against internal terrorists, they would still have a large population density, and they would still have a wall separating them from Israel, except now it would be a armed border. The economy would be worse and the human rights violations would no longer be as widely reported. How would that be an improvement?
Mojo,
Arabs hate Americans mostly because of their own impotence.
Let me clarify. I believe most Arabs do NOT hate Americans. Probably a majority are ambivalent about the United States. They respect our successes in business, science, and technology. They like our entertainment. At the same time, they are wary of our efforts in the Middle East.
So let me re-write that. I would say only a minority of Arabs actually hate Americans. The reason they do is mostly because of their own countries' problems and the general impotence of the region.
*
it's terrible what happened to European Jews in WWII. But I don't see what that has to do with the Palestinians being treated like shit for the last half century. It's as if the Palestinians are being punished for what the Nazis did to the Jews. -mojo
Why should the 3 BILLION people living in dictatorship have to suffer because America is Israel's ally. Why does democratization of the whole middle east have to stop just because of the injustice laid on the Palestinians?
Mojo, before the Iraq invasion, one of the most common objections to liberating Iraqis from Saddam was that America funds Israel! Hello! Why should millions of Iraqis suffer because of one controversial U.S. policy? How does that make sense?
If we Americans continue to have this mindset, the Arabs (and Europeans and many non-Americans) will continue to hate America, I'm afraid. DAMN! -mojo
Well there is another way. They could try and understand why Americans have this mindset other than just assuming we are all ignorant of the true pain of the Palestinians. Don't worry though mojo, most Europeans are angry about the U.S. liberating Iraq, not support for Israel.
Time to solve this problem, imo.
I agree. Palestine should be a free democracy. Its not. Once it is, this problem will start to be solved. Cutting off aid to Israel will not turn Palestine into a free democracy. Giving aid to Hamas will not turn Palestine into a free democracy. So what do you recommend and is this really more important than stabilizing Iraq?
[craig] "Mojo, do I have to point out to you that you are talking to a white South African about racism?"
Coming from a neo-nazi troll, that baseless accusation is a bit rich.
Accusation? Are you claiming you aren't a white South African, Bruno? :O
Mojo, I thought you claimed this guy didn't insult and deliberately lie? He just lied about me and insulted me, both, in one sentence.
Bruno,
The Palestinians were living there. The Jews came from Europe. Gosh, I wonder WHO the aggressors were.
The black Africans were living there. Your ancestors came from Europe. Prepare to die. It's what you just stated you deserve, for being an illegal occupier of South Africa, and a thief of black African lands. And unlike the Jews, you and your fellow European whites don't even have a historical claim. Asta la vista, baby. Let justice be done.
Mojo,
He's respected by the left. I find nothing wrong with that.
I do. "Respected Authors" are not respected by only political extremists. Particularly historians. If a historians work is respected by only one political faction, you can be sure it is biased and inaccurate. This should be obvious, Mojo. Historians aren't supposed to be partisans.
LOL! I've heard that one before. Yeah, 60% of Jordan's population is already Palestinian
70%.
those are the descendants of Palestinians who fled their homes in 48 & 67 and were not allowed to return.
I don't think that is so. According to wikipedia only about a million of the Palestinians in Jordan are refugees from Israel/Palestine. But it doesn't matter. Most Jordanian citizens are Palestinian. There already is a defacto Palestinian state. What else would you call Jordan? The "Hashemite" kingdom? :P
And you want the remainder of Palestinians living in the WB & Gaza (many of whom are original refugees) to also move to Jordan?? Damn, that's stupid. WOW
I didn't say that, Mojo. I don't really give a fuck, to be honest. I don't like Palestinians. I couldn't acre less if the status quo continues, forever. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Yes, Craig, many peoples have been oppressed, denied statehood throughout the history of the world. It doesn't mean that the same should happen to Palestinians.
Why shouldn't we, Mojo? I'm not an Arab. I'm not a Muslim. Why should I care about Palestinians more than I care about Native Americans, right here in the United States? As I aid before, I don't even like Palestinians, on a personal level.
If we Americans continue to have this mindset, the Arabs (and Europeans and many non-Americans) will continue to hate America, I'm afraid. DAMN!
They already do. Who cares? I have a little secret to tell you - The Europeans have always disliked Americans! And the Arabs have disliked Americans for as long as I've been alive, which is slightly longer than you've been alive. Do you think they'd like us better if we started kissing asses?
Joe,
Give West Bank to Jordan, and give Gaza to Egypt.
I suspect that's going to happen within the next year or so. A lot of people are talking about it. Especially now that Gaza has fallen to HAMAS, it seems quite likely that Egypt will at some point invade and occupy, just to put a boot on the neck of the crazy fucking bastards on their border.
I suppose that's better than giving it to Israel, because Israel evidently doesn't want to give the inhabitants of Gaza & WB any rights that most humans on earth are born with.
Mojo, it is not the responsibility of Israel to provide rights to non-citizens, on occupied land. Their only obligation in occupied territory is to provide security. A responsibility that Israelis had more success with meeting than the US did in Iraq, wouldn't you say?
But why shouldn't the Palestinians have their own country?
They did have their own country. In 1947.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181(Partition Plan)
60% of what remained of the Mandate of Palestine after Jordan was created, was to be a Palestinians state. 40% was to be a Jewish state.
1948 Arab-Israeli War
In 1947, the United Nations had recommended partitioning what remained of the Palestine Mandate (after Transjordan was created) into Jewish and Arab states, a plan which Arab leaders rejected.
Ask the Arab leaders why they rejected the plan for Palestinians Statehood, if you want an answer to the question of "Why shouldn't Palestinians have their own state", Mojo.
Not even in their wildest fantasies could Palestinians ever hope to get back what Arab governments rejected on their behalf in 1947, today
And didn't Jordan and Egypt control the WB & Gaza before 1967? How did that work out? Why is it so difficult to establish an independent Palestinian state?
Because the Arab-Israeli war never ended? How logical is it for the side that is losing a war to demand unilateral concessions from the victor, while the war continues?
That's some crazy shit, right there. And it's no surprise that nobody buys into it.
Jeffrey,
So let me re-write that. I would say only a minority of Arabs actually hate Americans.
Gotta disagree with you there, man! A majority of Arabs in the ME think it's OK to kill Americans. Can't hate people more than that, can you?
Craig,
Because the Arab-Israeli war never ended? How logical is it for the side that is losing a war to demand unilateral concessions from the victor, while the war continues?
I think Sandmonkey and I covered that one:
7 Rules of the APU.
Heh heh.
*
Craig,
A majority of Arabs in the ME think it's OK to kill Americans. Can't hate people more than that, can you?
Maybe it's just a form of "extreme prejudice"?
(Yes, I'm joking.)
Still, I believe the ultimate source of the hatred is mostly resentment and not whether Hamas gets their own country and a meal-ticket at the UN (snark for dinner anyone?).
*
If you want to start an argument just mention Israel/Palestine. Works every time. 
Bruno,
Without the source document that you cited I cannot be sure of the time period that statement is referring to. However it appears to be after the Arab/Israeli conflict in 1947-1948.
Perhaps you can clarify for me this:
The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up.
What were the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbors at that time?
Mojo,
I tend to agree with Craig about the quality of sources. That is, those that are respected by many parties are the most reliable. For instance, Benny Morris is used as a reference by Allan Dershowitz and An Italian. Certainly two very disparate people. I am inclined to look into his book in the future.
But using the quotes you gave us, I do have one question for you.
Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Armed Forces stated:
"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel. ...Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." [44]
Looking at the bolded areas of this quote, my question to you is why would he have gotten this idea? That is if the only people using violence in Palestine were Jews? As the chronology that you printed seems to imply?
One other thing. Someone earlier mentioned this:
The human rights records of Egypt and Jordan toward their own people is worse than Israel treatment of the Palestinians.
I don't know if you were reading Zeyad at the time, but he posted a video regarding the treatment of Iraqi refugees in Jordan. One person interviewed stated that the Israelis treated her better than the Jordanians. Just something you may want to keep in mind when looking for solutions to the various problems in the ME.
"Why does democratization of the whole middle east have to stop just because of the injustice laid on the Palestinians?" -K
K, I don't understand. Is there no democratization in the mid east because of the injustice laid on Palestinians?
"Mojo, before the Iraq invasion, one of the most common objections to liberating Iraqis from Saddam was that America funds Israel! Hello!"
Really? I hadn't heard of that one. What does funding Israeli have to do with liberating Iraqis from Saddam? Maybe they were referring to the hypocrisy of wanting to liberate Iraqis and keep Palestinians downtrodden?
"Why should millions of Iraqis suffer because of one controversial U.S. policy? How does that make sense?"
It doesn't make any sense. I agree with you, K.
"I agree. Palestine should be a free democracy. Its not. Once it is, this problem will start to be solved. Cutting off aid to Israel will not turn Palestine into a free democracy. Giving aid to Hamas will not turn Palestine into a free democracy. So what do you recommend and is this really more important than stabilizing Iraq"
Actually Palestine has become more democratic. The problem Israel & the US have now is that Hamas has been voted in. The US doesn't really have to give Hamas any money if there's a free Palestine. The problem is that Palestine is not free - Israel controls everything from borders to electricity.
There are two solutions to the Palestine issue:
1) A one state solution. It's clear that Israel wants to annex the West Bank and many Israelis want Gaza too. So they should annex both and give the Palestinians who live there Israeli citizenship.
2) A two state solution. If they take this route, Palestine must be a REAL state, contiguous and independent. They came close to an agreement in 1996, but Barak & Co wanted too much. Check this out: http://gush-shalom.org/media/bar...a/
barak_eng.swf
Next time the US tries to mediate between the Palestinians and Israelis, they shouldn't send a closet Zionist like Dennis Ross to referee. That would help.
Thank you K for your comments. You seem genuinely interested in seeing the Palestinians live normal lives.
"Before the unlilater withdrawl the Israel government has allowed Arabs to vote in their elections if Israel citizens, yes." - Joe K.
Joe, Israeli Arabs (the Arabs who were allowed to stay in Israel proper and became citizens - about 20% of the population today) have always been allowed to vote in Israeli elections. I was referring to the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza - they have never been allowed to vote in Israeli elections.
"Well, would you give money, aid, and recognition to someone who wanted to kill you? Probably the same reasoning that Hamas uses to not recognize Israel however one side uses guns. while the other witholds money."
Joe, they don't have to give money & aid to the Palestinians. All they need to do is be fair to them and let them have their country. They've already taken 78% of historic Palestine. Time to let them live in the remaining 22% without strangling them. Maybe then the Palestinians will stop hating Israel so much, and hopefully in the future there will even be normal relations between the two countries.
"Most of those Arabs were Beoudin Muslims (80%?) of Egyptian decent."
Egyptian descent?? LOL, you must be reading zionist 'hasbara'. Arabs have been living in that area for many centuries. Maybe many Palestinians are of Egyptian descent - Egypt is not far. I'm not sure what their descent has to do with their civil rights.
'Like you, I wish all people would be happy, live free, stop killing, and have equal rights. After 60 years, I don't see a "right of return" happening, maybe reparations but you'd be hard pressed to get the hardliners to give up a majority in the country while still having free elections to Arabs, it would lead to a non violent change in the Status Quo for them.'
Yes, the right of return. I can't speak for the Palestinians. Many want the right of return, many would rather just be compensated for their losses. The biggest problem is that many Palestinians who fled are still living in terrible conditions in refugee camps. Solve the refugee problem, and the right of return issue might solve itself. There was a recent debate on the right of return in Doha. Ilan Pappe participated. Check it out of you want: http://video.google.com/videopla...222840878&
hl=en
"That and, now generations later, it's just as bad to kick out some decendant of a Eupropean Israeli from their home, born and raised their for someone else who a desendant of a family that use to live there. Their would be squabbling over who had the deed, or if the land was sold since the inhabitants moved there, the legal right of purchase of the land etc..."
I'm not suggesting that Israelis be kicked out of their homes.
"Unless they simply wanted the chance to live in Israel in which their immagration concerns to the economy that many would protect."
I think it has more to do with Israel becoming too 'Arab' than with the econom
My comment was too long...
I think it has more to do with Israel becoming too 'Arab' than with the economy. An influx of Arab immigrants and normalization of relations with neighboring countries would probably help the Israeli economy.
"You got any ideas that are realistic and not ideological?"
I wrote about the two possible solutions in my response to K above. Thanks Joe for your comment. It's amazing how this topic generates so much debate.
To make Palestian "continuous" you'd have to make Israel "non-continuous", wouldn't you? Well, unless you gave the palestians 3/4ths of the country.
"Arabs hate Americans mostly because of their own impotence. If suddenly Palestine became a nation, most Arabs would continue hating the West and the Americans. Why? They keep losing wars, their economies are in bad shape, and they don't know if they want to return to the 7th century or give it a try in the 21st century. Instead of accepting the fact that the rest of the world is far ahead of them in science and technology and business, they look for an easy scapegoat and blame everyone else but themselves."
I think you're generalizing here. Not all Arab economies are in bad shape. Not all Arabs want to return to the 7th centuries. Are you sure that if Palestine becomes a nation, the Arabs would still hate us? You sure? The US had no serious problems with the Arabs until 1967, and the shit really hit the fan in 1973. I'm sure you know the key events that occurred in those years.
"Japan was absolutely crushed in WWII. Hundreds of thousands of citizens dead and their economy completely moribund after they put everything into the war effort. They ACCEPTED that they were defeated, learned from their mistakes, and today are a world power (without having a drop of oil and very few other natural resources)."
Maybe we should try a Marshall Plan for Palestine. I betchya that would help.
"So let me re-write that. I would say only a minority of Arabs actually hate Americans. The reason they do is mostly because of their own countries' problems and the general impotence of the region."
Yeah they don't hate Americans. They hate the fact that US foreign policy has been largely one sided and often unfair. But for the most part they love American culture and most everything American, and many of them want to come to America!
'To make Palestian "continuous" you'd have to make Israel "non-continuous", wouldn't you? Well, unless you gave the palestians 3/4ths of the country.'
Contiguous. Yes, good point. I have always argued that it would be fair to connect Gaza to the West Bank. Half the land for 6 million Israelis and half the land for 6 million Palestinians. Israelis don't live in the Negev desert anyway. But I know that's not going to happen. I mean contiguity in the West Bank, and not just contiguity, but also control of towns with an Arab majority, like Hebron.
Maybe this is why so many people think the one state solution makes more sense.
"We'll probably disagree on the Palestinian issue. Don't take it personally. It has a lot to do with where we come from. Some issues are almost impossible to see from the other person's point of view. I'm trying, but it's really difficult."
No problem at all, Jeffrey. We MUST have this discussion if there's any hope for a better future in the mid east. The Palestinian issue affects us all. I would like to see a fair and just solution for all. Thank you for commenting here. I appreciate your input, as always. Without guys like you and Craig, there would be no debate
"Mojo, I thought you claimed this guy didn't insult and deliberately lie? He just lied about me and insulted me, both, in one sentence."
I guess I should have said he doesn't insult me. Bruno, please try to be civil. Craig did not insult you, did he?
Lynnette, Craig, and Jeffrey, I want to respond to the rest of your comments, but I have to get out of here. Thanks again for participating in this important discussion. I'll get back to it tomorrow. Have a great Friday night!
IM, your proposed "one state" solution is no "solution" at all; it is a recipe for a civil war. As it stands, even the Palestinians cannot agree on how to govern themselves. Now that phase one of their civil war has ended with Hamas controlling Gaza. Perhaps, a peace with a rump westbank PA state can be formalized with Israel.
As much as Bruno attempts to blame the U.S. or the West for the Hamas/Fatah split, a serious confrontation between secularism (whether in the guise of Fatah or any other non-fundementalist Palestinian faction) and the militant fundementalism of Hamas was inevitable. I thought it would probably play out violently after a Palestinian state was formed with Hamas reprising the role of the Iranian militants who murdered thousands of leftists, liberals, and reformers after 1979 revolution in order to consolidate clerical power, but Hamas apparently judged correctly that the time was now ripe for them to drive Fatah out of Gaza.
Unfortunatley, I think we are about to see a mass migration of Palestinians escaping the hell that Gaza is about to become over the next year. As bad as Gaza is now, I fear it is about to get much, much worse. In part, this will be because Egypt is no mood to allow the Iranians to gain a foothold in their backyard by by proping up Hamas in Gaza in a manner similar to Hezbollah in South Lebanon. This means little of no aid will flow through the Rafah crossing. As a result, Hamas' premature and imprudent power play is likely to result in them starving and opressing the people of Gaza to the extent that many will forced to flee (probably to the west bank where western aid will be available). Make no mistake, after the Gazan's experience Hamas' heavy handed repression of all things secular, many will prefer to leave Gaza for this reason alone.
Contrary to yours and Bruno's suggestions, there is nothing hypocritical about the U.S. advocating democratic elections and then refusing to provide aid to an elected government run by Hamas, a political party that considers the U.S. to be its sworn enemy. This is not refusing to accept the results of an election; it is merely engaging in international politics. Unfortunately, the Palesinian population freely elected the radical militants of Hamas. They are now suffering the inevitable consequences of that politically immature choice. It is was incredibly naive and politically immature for the Palestinian electorate to chose Hamas and then profess shock when the EU, Israel, and U.S. withheld aid from Hamas after its post-election reiterations of its longstanding foreign policy of rejecting peace negotiations with Israel in favor of armed resistance.
"Egyptian descent?? LOL, you must be reading zionist 'hasbara'. Arabs have been living in that area for many centuries. Maybe many Palestinians are of Egyptian descent - Egypt is not far. I'm not sure what their descent has to do with their civil rights."
I apologize if that's off base, I think I read it on wikipedia about the current Arab population in Israel but I might have been misled. Even if not, as you said, it's irrevealant to their rights.
I disagree that the best strategy is ANOTHER unilateral concession to the Palestanians to give them financial aid and THEN hope that improved conditions will help them "like Israel" more.
Please, don't be insulted by this, but I think history has proven that by giving terrorist supporters concesstions, encourages further acts of terrorism. They see the "means" justify the "ends". They get what they wanted. They tell their people, "we made the zionist pigs bow down and give in to us". You may snark at that comment, but it's all too true. The US State Department is not about to do what Sharon did (against their wishes) all over again, and give them more.
I agree completely on why there's resistance to the "Right of return" as you stated, there'd be a huge swing in the populance being overtly Arab and thereby undoing the process of having a Jewish state, internally.
I do, however, fail to see how the right of return would prevent Israel from becoming the "tit for tat" terror on terror enclave as it was BEFORE in the early 1900s. Seems ineviatable to me.
Mojo,
Some Palestinians celebrated on 9/11, dancing and ululating, while others were quiet but extremely pleased to watch the carnage in America. That's their choice, but they need to understand that we are then their enemies and if any of our congressmen or congresswomen ever propose giving the Palestinians another dollar of our taxpayer money, I will on a train down to Washington by the end of the day.
And here's a video of what Palestinians do to each other. Notice that we hear NOT ONE PEEP out of the so-called Arab street about this.
Watch the whole video clip and let me know what you think.
I cannot say what I really feel about the Palestinians here because I have decided to stop using expletives in any of my comments.
*
Mojo,
I wanted to make one correction to my earlier comment. That video I referred to about Iraqi refugees was not the one posted by Zeyad. I believe it was posted in a link to another blog. My mistake.
Yes, the ideal solution would be a one state solution. But they came up with the partition plan for the very reason that no one would accept that. Which is why I was so intent on pointing out that during the late 1800's and early 1900's there definitely was fighting between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. To the point where they proposed the partition plan.
I have always felt that a country should respect all religions, races etc. And that there should be a separation of religion and state. But unfortunately circumstances don't seem to always allow for that. Or in other words there are people out there who are too stubborn to accept that.
Mark-In-Chi-Town,
I agree that the US has no obligation to support Hamas or any other organization that has participated in terrorist activities. That is our choice.
I will say in defense of the Palestinians that in those elections they had very little choice. The moderates are just not strong enough. And when you have a group like Hamas, who uses tactics on a par with Saddam, you will find it difficult to encourage the moderates that do exist.
Oh boy.
Passport control, Hamas-style.
Or is this trick or treat?
*
Thanks for that link, Jeffrey. I'm going to steal it.
Lynnette,
It just keeps getting better.
Heh heh heh.
*
Priceless!
OMFG!
"Democracy", Hamas style. Let's cut these guys a check!
Lynette:
I did not mean to imply that Fatah was a great choice for the Palestinian Electorate. Its history of corruption is too well documented for anyone to seriously contend such a thing. The PA electorate can be forgiven to some extent for its misjudgement since Hamas attempted to soft pedal their militant agenda during the election campaign by instead focusing on Hamas' more effcient management in cities and towns where it had been in power.
However, in democratic elections, the only politically mature choice is frequently to vote for the least worst candidate or party. The failure of the Palestinian people to account for the risk that Hams' reversion to its long held policy of "armed resistance" and rejection of permanent peace negotiations would lead to a cut off of werstern aid, especially given the relatively high percentage of PA revenue derived from those sources, was breathtakingly shortsighted. Unfortunately, it seems that the people of Gaza will suffer for this tragic mistake for a very long time to come.
There is no free speech from arrival of Arafat, so why call it demcratic election? The power of totalitarian Fatah could be contested only by a more totalitarian body, which used money from abroad combined from different sources.
How many people drink water in a Coca-cola-Pepsi state?
Mark,
I wonder how many Palestinians even realized that their lives depended so heavily on western aid? You look at how easily people like al-Sadr have manipulated where the money has come from for rebuilding projects in Sadr City, and I can't help but wonder.
Yes, you're right about Gaza. I wouldn't want to be living there. It sounds like the United States and other donors are ready to turn the tap back on for Abbas in the West Bank, however. It will be interesting to see if that helps or hurts the situation.
"Gaza has been effectively sealed off in a vacuum for years now. Border crossings have been constricted or shut down completely. On top of this, an economic blockade by western countries in response to Hamas's victory at the polls is compounding the misery.
So Gaza's marketplace has been forced underground and a tunnel trade has blossomed, placing the border town of Raffa at the centre of the new commerce.
We dig deeper into Gaza�s hidden underground economy. Avi talks to Israel's Ambassador to Canada, Allan Baker, from Ottawa about the Israeli response to the lucrative Palestinian tunnel trade."
http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullp...lpage.php?
id=70
Other sources say more money pours than before. We secure food and others weapons? Or food for (sale to buy) weapons? Palestine seems to be a corporation run by people with free ads on TV every day for the last 40 years. Strange. I do not trust this "system". I would prefer to see for ex. more on the Iranian resistance to their crazy mullahcracy. Or why not more Africa?
Little spot to replace the rest of the world?
Mojo,
Interesting video. Thank you.
I still think it boils down to the Palestinians recognizing Isreal as a state and then getting the Israelis to loosen up the strangle hold they have on Gaza and the West Bank. Whether or not things were done fairly in the past has to be put aside.
You can't keep negotiating at the point of a gun or you will continue to get smothered. And people will continue to die needlessly. *sigh*
I agree, Lynnette, eventually we must let go of the past. Regarding recognizing Israel as a state: haven't most Palestinians accepted the state of Israel? Hamas may have not removed the statement about Israel's destruction from their charter, but isn't that just old rhetoric designed to appease extremists? What's the reality on the ground? Has Hamas destroyed Israel in the slightest?
If we're going to judge a political party by its charter, why do people give Likud a free pass? Read item #8 on Likud's 1996 political platform:
8. The Jordan River shall be the eastern border of the State of Israel, south of Lake Kinneret. This will be the permanent border between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The Kingdom of Jordan may become a partner in the final arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians, in areas agreed upon in the negotiations.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary....tics/
likud.html
So maybe the state of Israel should recognize the state of Palestine if people want the Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel.
So maybe the state of Israel should recognize the state of Palestine if people want the Palestinians to recognize the state of Israel.
Or what? What will continue to happen before Israel recognizes Palestine?
And who? Who would the Israelis recognize as the leaders of Palestine? Israel has a government that can be held accountable for crimes they commit. Who is accountable for Palestine? Is that government a true democracy? If not, why would Israel recognize a new undemocratic state.
The world does not need more failed states. It need many more democratic states. Is Palestine ready for that yet?
But K, the Palestinians elected Hamas. It is a democratic govt - as democratic as Palestine can be in such times and circumstances.
By Ahmed Yousef
The Washington Post 20 June 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7061901736.html
GAZA CITY, Palestine -- The Palestinian National Authority apparently joins the list of elected governments targeted or toppled over the past century by interventionism: nations that had the courage to take American rhetoric at face value and elect whomever they would. No doubt some in Washington persist in the fiction that the United States is following a "road map" to democracy for Palestinians, just as others believe the Iraq war has been a sincere exercise in nation-building. Neoconservative strategists have miscalculated, however, and Hamas is stronger than ever.
For the first time in months, Gaza is secure. This may be a momentary peace as Israel prepares an attempt to retake parts of Gaza. Yet neither blunt force nor U.S. subterfuge will extinguish Palestinian aspirations for self-governance, free from outside interference.
...Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve. Those who warn of "failed states" and "Hamastan" as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for failure belongs -- at the feet of the American administration, which has chosen to isolate, rather than deal with, the elected government.'
Read the entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7061901736.html
Hamas was elected, but is Hamas itself a democratic organization? Can a government be called "democratic" if it does not truly want democracy and freedom (of speech, of religion, of opposition) for all of its governed? Can a group be called democratic if all of its constituent parts are not also?
Please remember that there are plenty of examples of "elected" governments throughout history that were in no way truly democratic because they destroyed the very tools of freedom that a real democracy needs to function freely and fairly - Hitler, Chavez, Saddam - all "elected" at some point, but actually destroyed the very systems that elected them, thus destroying any semblance of real democracy. I believe the violent takeover by Hamas over their political rivals proves that they were are in this category of history. Mojo, correct me if you disagree, but I think they have proven that they do not want true democratic state, they just want a independent state named Palestine.
Hamas wants freedom from Israel, no doubt, but do they want freedom for the potential citizens of Palestine from Hamas?
Mojo,
Most Palestinians accepting Israel as a state is fine, if they can also control those who do not. It's got to be tough to just sit back and not do anything when someone lobs rockets at you constantly. And, indeed, Israel usually retaliates. Which just escalates the situation.
Peace will be a central aim of Israel's policy. The Government of Israel will conduct direct negotiations with Arab states to reach peace agreements.
Security is the basis for durable peace in our region. Israel will make security a first condition in any peace agreement.
That's the sticking point on the Israeli side. Even if you can get them to believe that most of the Palestinians are okay with Israel's existence, you still have the problem of those who are lobbing the rockets. It's kind of like what came first the chicken or the egg? You gotta give Israel security to get them to really agree to the two state solution and get the Likud party to rewrite their charter.
I notice(using Wiki which may or may not be accurate) that Likud has only 12 seats in the Knesset. What about the other parties? Do you know what their views are on the two state solution? Aren't Olmert and/or Barak for it? I know someone is, but I don't have time to do research right now. I was just wondering if the supporters have the power to get the deal done.
K has a point in the type of organization Hamas is. It's like if the Muslim Brotherhood were to be elected a majority in Egypt. Do you think that would lead to a more democratic Egypt?
Every time I read that chronology I think 'zionist terrorism was rewarded with statehood' - that's what I usually titled the posts (on Yahoo boards) in which I included this chronology.
It amazes me as I review this post. The Palestine-Israel conflict always gets the most attention, the most debate.
IA, I read that article and it should be worth noting that the author of it was the advisor to the PM a Hamas member. Not exactly middle of the road thoughts there. Yousef paints a pretty picture, far prettier than the one Hamas has for it's people.
"Those who warn of "failed states" and "Hamastan" as a breeding ground for terrorism forget where blame for failure belongs -- at the feet of the American administration, which has chosen to isolate, rather than deal with, the elected government"
Typcial to reflect the blame onto others. Notice he doesn't say "it's our fault our failed policy of fighting the jews into the sea has isolated us to the world's aid and chances" no, it's other's fault for not conceding to their terrorist acts. Which in turn, only further encourage acts of more terror.
You know, give a mouse a cookie...
"notice(using Wiki which may or may not be accurate)"
I read that wiki is wrong less often than the Encylopedia Britanica. So, take that for whatever it's worth.
"'zionist terrorism was rewarded with statehood' "
Apparently unilateral withdrawl was not good enough to let them have a state. They needed financial backers and yet won't renounce their terror! They are too stubborn to do it. If they choose to hate Israel, fine, but constant acts of war on another country does not buy you favors.
They have their state, it's a failed one, and it's now the fault of everyone but themselves for their OWN STUBBORNESS. But no, they couldn't be seen "giving in" to the "great satan" and "little satan" that would kill their street cred. So they'd rather watch their people suffer and deflect the blame than simply saying "Okay, you left our areas, now we recognize you and will stop the fighting".
Problems with that arise in that Arafat's hundas have just proven to be a "waiting period" to rearm and then continue the fight later, when better armed and with the advantage.
So it's a sticky issue for Israel regaurdless. The Road Map had all these points laid out and once one was verified and met the other would commence. Hamas being elected severly stopped that process because the point of recognizing Israel's right to exsist was never going to happen.
And Sharon agreed to the withdrawl without concessions before Hamas was elected. So it's not a means to undermine the process in doing so unilaterally, he caught a lot of crap for doing that and praise from many others. I bet he's rolling in his grave right now though.
"Not exactly middle of the road thoughts there. Yousef paints a pretty picture, far prettier than the one Hamas has for it's people."
I don't know much about Hamas, to be honest. I mean do they kill people for adultery? How fundie are they?
It's interesting that his articles were published by the Washington Post AND the New York Times!
What Hamas Wants
By AHMED YOUSEF
The New York Times
20 June 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/2...n/
20yousef.html
Gaza City--THE events in Gaza over the last few days have been described in the West as a coup. In essence, they have been the opposite. Eighteen months ago, our Hamas Party won the Palestinian parliamentary elections and entered office under Prime Minister Ismail Haniya but never received the handover of real power from Fatah, the losing party. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has now tried to replace the winning Hamas government with one of his own, returning Fatah to power while many of our elected members of Parliament languish in Israeli jails. That is the real coup.
From the day Hamas won the general elections in 2006 it offered Fatah the chance of joining forces and forming a unity government. It tried to engage the international community to explain its platform for peace. It has consistently offered a 10-year cease-fire with the Israelis to try to create an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences. Hamas even adhered to a unilateral cease-fire for 18 months in an effort to normalize the situation on the ground. None of these points appear to have been recognized in the press coverage of the last few days.
Nor has it been evident to many people in the West that the civil unrest in Gaza and the West Bank has been precipitated by the American and Israeli policy of arming elements of the Fatah opposition who want to attack Hamas and force us from office. For 18 months we have tried to find ways to coexist with Fatah, entering into a unity government, even conceding key positions in the cabinet to their and international demands, negotiating up until the last moment to try to provide security for all of our people on the streets of Gaza.'
continued...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/2...n/
20yousef.html
OK, so I've missed long stretches of this debate.
Just a few points to make:
(1) Interesting to note that the dedication to "democracy" displayed by some posters and countries ends when they are faced with electoral results they don't like. America has no obligation to support Hamas, true. But respect for democracy would atOK, so I've missed long stretches of this debate. Just a couple of points to make:
(1) Interesting to note that the dedication to "democracy" displayed by some posters and countries ends when they are faced with electoral results they don't like. America has no obligation to support Hamas, true. But respect for democracy would at least stop one from arming the losing group and inciting violence between the two factions. It’s like Russians arming Democrats in the US because they didn’t like Bush winning. Yes, the attitudes of some people are instructive indeed.
(2) Interesting to note that ancient historical claims of residence on a land (Israel, Palestine) somehow confer the right to invade and dispossess the current inhabitants. I guess that Al Qaeda has a legal case, then, for wanting to reclaim Southern Spain? And, can the Mongols re-settle themselves in Eastern Europe? You people make me laugh.
least
Um, let's do that again:
OK, so I've missed long stretches of this debate. Just a couple of points to make:
(1) Interesting to note that the dedication to "democracy" displayed by some posters and countries ends when they are faced with electoral results they don't like. America has no obligation to support Hamas, true. But respect for democracy would at least stop one from arming the losing group and inciting violence between the two factions. It’s like Russians arming Democrats in the US because they didn’t like Bush winning. Yes, the attitudes of some people are instructive indeed.
(2) Interesting to note that ancient historical claims of residence on a land (Israel, Palestine) somehow confer the right to invade and dispossess the current inhabitants. I guess that Al Qaeda has a legal case, then, for wanting to reclaim Southern Spain? And, can the Mongols re-settle themselves in Eastern Europe? You people make me laugh.
"And, can the Mongols re-settle themselves in Eastern Europe?"
I think the argument is that Jews were 'original' inhabitants of Palestine. Kinda like the Cherokee were original inhabitants of Georgia. The big difference is that the Cherokee were removed from their native land just less than two hundred years ago.
http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.o...e.jsp?id=h-
2722
Yeah and the Native American's here have their own country within a country, they don't have our laws or taxes and get a TON of money from our government. I did't see the jews getting that deal.
"It’s like Russians arming Democrats in the US because they didn’t like Bush winning"
Or maybe just arming Belrus, Venuzulaha, and various other "bad actors" that perpetuate violence and rhethoric that is used as ammo by the Democrats against our current administation. Hence the Danny Glover and Michael Moore's befriending Hugo and Castro (another Ruskie friend).Not to mention, helping Iran with it's nuclear reactor and vetoing strong sanctions at the UN against the program.
They wouldn't need to ACTUALLY arm the Democrats because thanks to our blessed 2nd amendment, we can OWN GUNS if we want to. I do
Mojo,
The Palestine-Israel conflict always gets the most attention, the most debate.
Yeah, I know. You just wanted the attention.
'zionist terrorism was rewarded with statehood'
And they would say 'zionist patriots achieve statehood'.
It's too late to change the past. You were right with your first statement:
I agree, Lynnette, eventually we must let go of the past.
Too many people have died or lost their homes for anyone to have clean hands. They have to compromise. And those that have the will to compromise have to deal with those who don't.
Bruno,
But respect for democracy would at least stop one from arming the losing group and inciting violence between the two factions.
What of those who are arming the winning group and inciting violence between the two factions?
Yes, the attitudes of some people are instructive indeed.
Wasn't Bush up front about fighting terrorism and those engaged in the practice? Is not Hamas listed as a terrorist organization? Which was the real problem with our funding them.
There now, I've run out of time. I will have to come back and read your post about the blow-dried one later.
It’s like Russians arming Democrats in the US because they didn’t like Bush winning. Yes, the attitudes of some people are instructive indeed.
Bruno, this is possibly the dumbest thing you have said (recently).
1a. Democrats are armed in the U.S. both politically and with weapons. Its in the U.S. Constitution and most strongly enforced by Republicans. Americans owning guns did not lead to civil war. Americans owning other Americans did.
1b. Outside countries can and do support opposition freely and easily in the U.S. Chavez funds a whole radical political party here in the U.S. Many Americans are dumb enough to fall for it and think its real. The anti-war movement A.N.S.W.E.R. is allegedly funded heavily by foreign sources. Clearly al-Qaeda also propagandizes Americans all the time. Even determined South Africans are free to dump their lame anti-U.S. Government conspiracy theories on us without sanction or reprisal.
IA,
Just a point of clarification, the "article" you cite is actually an opinion piece by AHMED YOUSEF a political advisor to Ismail Haniya the former Hamas prime minister. Thus, it is Hamas' spin on the current situation which was packaged by Hamas' PR flacks to the WP and NYT for consumption by western audiences.
However, Hamas' spin raise many interesting questions. If Hamas' intentions have been so peaceful, why hasn't the captured Israeli solidier been returned to Israel as a good will gesture? In view of Iran's massive arming of its ally Hezobollah after Israel's withdrawl from south Lebanon and Hamas' increasingly close alliance with Iran, why would any Israeli view a Hamas "10 year truce" offer as anything other a strategic pause during which Hamas would attempt to massively arm itself just as Hezbollah has done. If Hamas' intentions are so peaceful, why hasn't it unilaterally dropped the destruction of Israel stuff from its charter, again as at least a good will gesture to restart negoations?
Your attempt to draw parallells between Likud's repugnant "Greater Israel" policy and Hamas's genocidal "destory Israel" policy is quite weak since Likud does not arm and fund its own private militia like Hamas, Likud does not control the current government of Israel, and Likud has not recently lanched a mini-civil war to systematically murder its political opponents in order to take control over a portion of Isreal. For these reasons, Likud is restrained by the more dovish politics of the Israeli electorate. In stark contrast, Hamas has just instigated and won a mini-war to demostrate to Fatah, one and for all, that it rejects any constraints on its radical agenda.
Pulling back to a more long term view of the history of the PA, the violence in Gaza is the inevitable result of PA's failure to establish a political culture in which respect for the rule of law is paramount. This is the fault of both Hamas and the PLO. Organizing elections really is the easy part of attempting to create a functional liberal democratic government. The hard part is developing an electorate which demands strong legal institutions and that will not tolerate political parties that attempt to utilize force to remedy their percieved grievances. Without these last two things (along with protections for minority rights), attempts to establish a democracy can quickly devolve into lengthy waves of political violence as was the case in the wake of the French revolution.
I fear that the Palestinians are mired in the same kind of politcal trap as the post-revolution French and that it may take the rise of a Palestinian Napoleon (military strongman) to create some order within the PA. I hope that I am wrong on this.
I guess that Al Qaeda has a legal case, then, for wanting to reclaim Southern Spain? And, can the Mongols re-settle themselves in Eastern Europe? You people make me laugh.
I disagree with K about your stupidest recent comment. It must be this one!
On Spain - it wasn't Arabs who invaded Spain. It was Berbers. And they broke away from the Baghdad (Arab) Caliphate, and had their own Caliphate in Spain. But more importantly, they were INVADERS of Spain. Not original inhabitants. They invaded and converted the locals to Islam by force. It took 500 years for Spaniards to drive them out. And any Muslims who remained in the country after the reconquista were put to the sword. If Al Qaeda wants to try and take Spain "back" let them. I imagine it will take less than 500 years for the US to liberate Spain and put all Muslims there to the sword, next time. We'd probably welcome the opportunity to hunt down Al Qaeda in a less "jihad" friendly environment than Iraq, eh? If you can think of a way to trick Al Qaeda to take over Spain, I urge you to do so
As for the Mongols and Eastern Europe, you must mean the Huns in the 4th and 5th century?
Or do you mean Timur the Lame? Because his armies were Turkic.
No Mongols in there, mang...
I think your most relevant example would have to be Anglo-Saxons in England, versus the original inhabitants.
'Just a point of clarification, the "article" you cite is actually an opinion piece by AHMED YOUSEF'
Yes, that's why the words By Ahmed Yousef appear at the top before the article.
Interesting that his opinions were published in the Washington Post and New York Times, no?
"Interesting that his opinions were published in the Washington Post and New York Times, no?
Iraqi American | Homepage | 06.21.07 - 9:35 pm | # "
IA, dude, NYT and the Wash Post for that matter has absolutely NO PROBLEM with giving the otherside a voice to spin their propaganda.
Like most media outlets, they let them talk and we're free to interject our opinions on their statements (no matter how ludicrious) however we deem fit. Just because he gets an article printed in the op ed doesn't mean he's right or his words are not misleading.
And it didn't hurt him that the same day Jimmy "worst president in history" Carter came out and said the US was unfair to Hamas and should have given them aid. He's probably just happy to see another president get an approval rating as low as his so he's emboldened to take pot shots whenever available.
Just getting printed doesn't make you a pundit or a scholar, or a "noble" person for that matter.
[craig] “On Spain - it wasn't Arabs who invaded Spain.”
Who said anything about Arabs? I’m talking about Al Qaeda, A Muslim organisation. You need to wake up.
In any case, the rest of your statement indicates clearly to me that you don’t actually care about the legal issues at stake (which is the entire point of the discussion) and care only about military power balances.
In other words, to you, might is right.
It’s an attitude I’ve encountered very often amongst the invasionists, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least to hear it from you. I’m betting though, that if it were your houses being burnt down and your children doomed to a life of living in refugee camps, there would be a great outcry about ‘injustice’ …
[bruno] “It’s like Russians arming Democrats”
[k] “Democrats are armed in the U.S. both politically and with weapons.”
Yeah, that ranks as one of “K’s greatest idiocies”, alright. The implication is that violent action is encouraged, reinforced by the previous line which addresses precisely that point. I’m afraid I don’t have time to hold your hand in comprehension classes, K.
But that’s not quite as hilarious as THIS idiocy:
[k] “Outside countries can and do support opposition freely and easily in the U.S. Chavez funds a whole radical political party here in the U.S.”
Ummm, K, did you bother to READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE? It says exactly the opposite of what YOU claim. You need to find some REAL support for your assertion.
ROTFL!
From K’s link here: http://socialismandliberation.or...dex.php?
aid=641
“These U.S.-funded NGOs have plagued Latin American countries for decades. On countless occasions, they aim to manipulate the population in favor of the capitalist ruling class of the given country. [...] Because Súmate’s aims run counter to those of the vast majority of the masses, it has little internal support. It can only exist with massive funding from the U.S. government.”
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot … try again, K
[joe K] “Yeah and the Native American's here have their own country within a country, they don't have our laws or taxes and get a TON of money from our government.”
Gee, whiz. Why, that rings a bell.
Isn’t that precisely the same sort of thing the South African Apartheid government was saying about the Bantustans? Need I say more?
[mojo] “I think the argument is that Jews were 'original' inhabitants of Palestine.”
I’ve heard this argument several times before, and it’s bogus.
Consider, for example, the genetic diversification of the Diaspora. How many of those “Jews” that claim Israel today actually have a direct bloodline to the people of David’s time? We’re talking about thousands of years of crossbreeding and dilution. I’m guessing that the “palesinians” probably have the same or more of that blood than the so-called Israelites.
Check this out:
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics...racts-
jews.html
Truth is, Jewish populations are so mixed up that they in some cases have little relation to each other. Studies have shown that the majority are actually closest to the Kurds in terms of genetics. Fact is, the “bloodline” to the ancient Jews is so diluted as to be meaningless.
Next: The religious claim. That’s equally bogus. Does that mean that if I convert to Judaism today I have a legal claim on the lands of Israel (formerly Palestine)? (Oh, the ties to the land of Israel call me nooww!) That’s crazy. Yet there are “Israelites” in Israel right now that have only a converted religion in common with the ancient inhabitants of that land.
And, where, assuming that we even begin to consider the legitimacy of such a religious claim, does the claim arise from? It arises from religious scripts that were WRITTEN BY THEM. Well, that’s nice. Additionally, I have to say that as an atheist, the concept of an imaginary being ceding legal rights to lands to peoples does not sit easily with me. Finally, even ignoring these problems, is it not true that Muslims have a shared religion in the sense that it derives from Abrahamic roots … the supposed original inhabitant of Israel? Why would then the Jewish religious claim supercede a Muslim one?
Let’s be serious, here.
The legitimisation of the Israeli claim on either religion or bloodline basically lays open a legal can of worms of such proportions that it does not bear considering.
[markinchitown] “In stark contrast, Hamas has just instigated and won a mini-war to demostrate to Fatah, one and for all, that it rejects any constraints on its radical agenda.”
That’s odd, I thought that the US armed Fatah and helped it launch a war on Hamas in order to overturn the results of the democratic elections that Hamas won:
“ Senior Hamas official Mushir al-Masri blamed the United States on Friday for attempting to promote a revolt against the Hamas government, after U.S. documents showed that the Bush administration will provide $86.4 million to strengthen security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. "We demand that Abbas reject this U.S. policy, which is tearing the Palestinian people apart," he said. The new policy would expand U.S. involvement in Abbas' power struggle with Hamas.”
http://mpacuk.org/content/view/3231/34/
[markinchitown] “If Hamas' intentions are so peaceful, why hasn't it unilaterally dropped the destruction of Israel stuff from its charter, again as at least a good will gesture to restart negoations?”
Interesting how the onus is always on the Palestinians to make the first move, yet when they do offer an olive branch, such as the truce you mentioned, it is rejected in any case.
I refer to this article, which makes a good case for these double standards:
“Palestinians, frankly, see a lot of hypocrisy in the West's anti-Hamas stance. Since last year's election, for example, the West has denied aid to the Hamas government, arguing, among other things, that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel. But that's absurd; after all, Israel does not recognize Palestine either. Hamas is accused of not abiding by previous agreements. But Israel's suspension of tax revenue transfers to the Palestinian Authority, and its refusal to implement a Gaza-West Bank road link agreement brokered by the U.S. in November 2005, are practical, rather than merely rhetorical, violations of previous agreements, causing infinitely more damage to ordinary people. Hamas is accused of mixing religion and politics, but no one has explained why its version of that mixture is any worse than Israel's — or why a Jewish state is acceptable but a Muslim one is not.”
http://
fairuse.100webcustomers.c...latimesA63.html
"I’m betting though, that if it were your houses being burnt down and your children doomed to a life of living in refugee camps, there would be a great outcry about ‘injustice’ …"
Yeah, I'd be pretty pissed at those people who burned it down and the regime they worked for, not the liberators who are trying to stop them.
"Isn’t that precisely the same sort of thing the South African Apartheid government was saying about the Bantustans? Need I say more?"
Sure?
what the hell is your point?
"Finally, even ignoring these problems, is it not true that Muslims have a shared religion in the sense that it derives from Abrahamic roots … the supposed original inhabitant of Israel? Why would then the Jewish religious claim supercede a Muslim one?
Let’s be serious, here. "
Islam started 600 years after chistianity and 2600 years before Abraham who was consided the father of the Jewish people and first Hebrew.
Wow.
sorry should say "2600 years after"
"the onus is always on the Palestinians to make the first move, yet when they do offer an olive branch, such as the truce you mentioned, it is rejected in any case"
I'm guessing the unilateral withdrawl by Sharon from the Gaza Strip and West Bank of 432 settlements wasn't good enough to be considered a "first move"?
"Hamas is accused of mixing religion and politics, but no one has explained why its version of that mixture is any worse than Israel's — or why a Jewish state is acceptable but a Muslim one is not.”"
Sharia law does not account for equal freedoms to all without regard to sex, color, race or religion. The charter of the Israel has "basic rights" for all which include those rights of equality. A recent amendment only stated that no political group may be formed in Israel that does not recognize that countries right to exsist.
"That’s odd, I thought that the US armed Fatah and helped it launch a war on Hamas in order to overturn the results of the democratic elections that Hamas won"
Sure, why not? When one side advocates a peace process with pro-western country and another sides against such a process...who would you THINK they'd support?
Hey Bruno, as an atheist why do you support 1.3 billion muslims with 50 some odd countries controlled or dominated by their faith but not support 1 jewish country for the some 13 million jewish people .6% of the world population who are routinely despised in Euprope and the Mid East, not to mention largerly exterminated by that hatred during the Holocaust - as a means to protect themselves?
Are you an anti-semite? Or do you just find them expendable?
OOPS!
sorry the disengagment plan removed 25 settlements (21 gaza, 4 west bank) I was thinking of something else.
http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm
this site has a zionist author who wrote a book to be critical of Ben-Gurion, saw the dark side of their actions, and in the end identified with their motive/cause. It's not nice to jews, and very much talks about their war crimes - rapes, massacres - and conversly how it HAD to be done to make a state for the jews.
For the record, I will never condone the war crimes as he does. It's just an interprespective from a zionist historian.
Give it a read.
"Both Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor and David Shipley, the Times' deputy editorial page editor, said they would not have carried the articles had they known of the other paper's publishing plans."
http://www.reuters.com/article/t...&rpc=22&
sp=true
"Isn’t that precisely the same sort of thing the South African Apartheid government was saying about the Bantustans? Need I say more?" -bruno
Sure? What the hell is your point? -Joe K.
No Joe, not "sure". Other than some legalized gambling, there is no similarity. I lived in Africa during Apartheid and met may South Africans of many races. I am also part Native American and I have been to many reservations in the Southwest so let me assure there is no similarity! South African "Bantustans" were basically little more than forced relocation camps used to deprive Africans of their rights based on race. But Native Americans are all U.S. citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment and as clarified by the Snyder Act. We've had the right to freely leave "reservations" well before the 1880's! We have more self determination rights than normal citizens, not less! Does that excuse the European invasion, extermination and cultural genocide? No, but that ended over 160 years ago! Americans and European immigrants are at peace now. In South Africa, this race war ended only 16 years ago when the "natives" were finally granted full citizenship by the ANC (sometimes even by force) - when South Africa became a democracy.
Even 160 years ago in America, it was not nearly as bad as the Apartheid era. In America, in the 1890's, "Indians" were forced to learn to read and write English instead of their own languages. In South Africa, just a few decades ago, it was illegal to teach a black man to read! No similarity!
ahhh ha thanks for the lesson K, I appreciate it
Joe K, do not believe Bruno is an anti-Semite, he is just an anti-American. And since Israel is both a valuable and vunerable ally of the US, Bruno attacks it ever more vehermetly then he does the US.
You are right Joe K that it is strange that some people get upset that there is one Jewish State while they do not bat an eye at there being more then 50 Moslem countries.
Especially revolting is smearing Israel as an Apartheid State while ignoring true Apartheid States like Saudi Arabia.
Concerning the Palestinian, it is true that have been abused by both Israel and even more so, their Arab "brothers" and have had the worse set of leaders imaginable. Still that does not justify the way they have embraced death as in suicide bombings. This is not the result of poverty and only partly that of oppression. It is mostly the result of people who are indoctrinated into hating their enemies, orginally Israel, but now like in Iraq their fellow Moslems as well if they are of a different sect. The Palestinians should be thankful they have Israel as an opponent, their Arab "brothers" would have crushed them long ago if they had tried against them the terrorism they committed against Israel. Indeed, King Hussein in Sept. 1970 did drive out the PLO from Jordan when the PLO tried to establish a de facto separte state within Jordan. On that occasion, hundreds of Palestinian Fighters swimed against the Jordan to surrender to the Israelis. Evidently they preferred Israeli Jails to Jordanian Firing Squads!
Joe K: Thanks for link to interview with Benny Morris. Looks very interesting.
IA, have left comment on thread about Iraqi Christians, sorry it took so long.
Joe K,
Thanks for the Benny Morris interview link. It was very interesting.
Are you an anti-semite? Or do you just find them expendable?
Joe K. | 06.22.07 - 12:47 pm |
I just read this (I have been very busy), and I think it's unfair to assume that Bruno is an anti-semite. I think that one who criticizes Israel (or even argues that Israel should not have existed as a state) is not necessarily an anti-semite. There are orthodox rabbis who argue that Israel should not be a state - are they anti-semites?
"You are right Joe K that it is strange that some people get upset that there is one Jewish State while they do not bat an eye at there being more then 50 Moslem countries.
Especially revolting is smearing Israel as an Apartheid State while ignoring true Apartheid States like Saudi Arabia." -David All
Yes it's a big world, with dozens of Muslim countries, and only one Jewish state. Does that make it ok for that one Jewish state to treat the Palestinians like they have? You make a good point about Saudi apartheid, but KSA is in the extreme.
"There are orthodox rabbis who argue that Israel should not be a state - are they anti-semites?"
You're talking about "Neturei Karta" I believe.
Yes, but their motives are different, in the belief that Jews are forbidden to have their own state until the coming of the Messiah.
None aquainted with the factors that Arabs and muslims have in their exsistance.
"Does that make it ok for that one Jewish state to treat the Palestinians like they have?"
How did the palestinians treat the jews who immigrated there beforehand?
Was not the unrest in the area the reason the Mandate was split into Israel and Jordan to give each respective side space and authority to control their own security?
It was a 2 state solution already! Now it's became a 3 or 4 state solution simply because people with different religions based in certain areas cannot fundamentally coexist.
Now comes the time to filter out the unreasonable people (Hamas, Al Queada) and work and help those who seek a mutual solution, not a unilateral one.
[k] “South African "Bantustans" were basically little more than forced relocation camps used to deprive Africans of their rights based on race.”
[…]
“We've had the right to freely leave "reservations" well before the 1880's!”
Interesting interpretation, K. Of course the truth is a little more complex than that. The Bantustans were originally conceived partly as an effort to preserve the cultures of the various black tribes. Naturally, this became perverted into the 1980’s situation where they were used as a cheap-labour pool by SA industry. Of course the black population had to be allowed to leave the ‘stans in order to be employed in industry. Please note that I’m not defending the morality of the situation (which it was not), merely attacking your shaky grasp of the facts and drawing attention to the similarity between the SA and US situations.
[K] “Does that excuse the European invasion, extermination and cultural genocide? No, but that ended over 160 years ago!”
Very interesting comment, K. In other words, if the Dutch, French and British immigrants had wiped out the black tribes in South Africa starting 350 years ago, which is when the Cape Colony was founded, you’d be OK with the situation? Oh, hey, that’s nice. Reward the genociders, right?
[K] “In America, in the 1890's, "Indians" were forced to learn to read and write English instead of their own languages.”
In the process destroying Native American culture. But that’s a GOOD thing, right?
[K] In South Africa, just a few decades ago, it was illegal to teach a black man to read!
That’s complete bullshit. I seriously question your knowledge on my country:
“Black students in Soweto protested against the Afrikaans Medium Decree of 1974 which forced all black schools to use Afrikaans and English in a 50-50 mix as languages of instruction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sow...ki/
Soweto_riots
You know, funny thing, black South Africans are RATHER ATTACHED to their languages and culture, and gee, blacks are glad that they weren’t wiped out or forced to auto destruct their cultures as per the American model.
[david] “And since Israel is both a valuable and vunerable ally of the US, Bruno attacks it ever more vehermetly then he does the US.”
LOL! A valuable ally?
Oh, yeah, the US benefits from the billions of dollars they send to Israel every year. And, let’s not forget that the US benefits from having a bullseye tagged to its back for every pissed-off Muslim radical, thanks to being Israel’s friend. And yeah, then there was that USS Liberty incident … ally? I dunno about that.
[david] “it is strange that some people get upset that there is one Jewish State”
I don’t have any problem at all with a Jewish State. I have a problem with a Jewish State at the expense of somebody else. That is the problem.
Bruno, if you really knew anything about history, you would know that few, if any countries, have been formed without some peoples having to suffer for it. Saying you are against a Jewish State for this reason is just another way of saying you are against a Jewish State, period.
And yes, Israel has been a valuable ally, especially in terms of captured Soviet military equipment and intelligence information. Also Israel repays the aid it is sent in one form or another.
The USS Liberty tragedy was a simple mistake of misidentification. Anyone who knows anything about War know how often forces of the same nation fire on each other by mistake, let alone that of another nation as was in this case.
As for the anger of militant Moslems, the same could be said for US friendship with India. Indeed all the criticisms made of Israel about their treatment of Palestinians could be made with at least equal, if not greater truth concerning India's treatment of the Moslem majority in Kashmir and its treatment of the non-Hindi ethnic groups in India's North-East between Bangeldesh and Nepal. Guess it is harder to de-legitmize a Nation of 1 billion people like India then it is de-legimitze one of 8 million like Israel. Also concerning militant Moslems, most Americans and I suspect, an increasing number of Europeans realize that these Islamic Militants will always find some reason to be upset with the West and that it is folly to try and appease them by selling out a friend like Israel or India.
Joe K, thank you for the link to the interview with Benny Morris. He does seem to have the facts and presents them bluntly. Should note that the number he gives for Arab civilans killed by Israeli forces are a good deal less then the several thousand Israelis murdered by various Arab groups, particularly among the isolated Jewish settlements of the West Bank and the Old City of Jerusalem. Afraid that Morris is right about the nessissity of Israel to remover the bulk of hostile Palestinians in their midst in order to have a State with a strong Jewish Majority. Sometimes these harsh events are unavoidable. Wishing that it could have been otherwise will not change that fact.
(continued). In a better world, perhaps what Israel did in 1948 could have been avoided. But in a better world, perhaps there would have been no urgent unavoidable need of a Jewish State to begin with.
And there was an urgent need for a Jewish State to take in more then a half million survivors of the Holocaust that had no where else to go. They could not go back to their lands in anti-Semitic Central & Eastern Europe, many of whose people such as the Poles had helped the Nazis in the Holocaust or had turned their backs on the Jews.
As for Western democracies including the US, yes some Jewish survivors were allowed in along with other war refugees, but not too many, due to fears about there not being enough jobs in post-war America (understandable given the Great Depression of the 1930s) and, yes, a good deal of just below the surface anti-Semitism of many Americans. The only place that seemed to want the mass of Holocaust Survivors were the Zionists in Palestine.
(Note at that time, calling the inhabitants of Palestine, Palestinians, usually referred to the Jewish population. The Arabs who are today Palestinians were not sure what they were. They often referred to themsevles as South Syrians among other things.)
The Zionists already had the numbers, several hundred thousand, and the organization of a state in embroyo, including a military.
Because of all this, the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine or the Holy Land, as most Christians then would defintely have called it, seemed like the easiest solution. Often in politics the path taken is that which seems to be the easiest or the path of least resistance. Such a path was the one taken by the UN with backing from both the US & the Soviet Union in 47/48 that gave the Jews a chance at their own State provided they could beat off the attacks from the Arab Nations surronding them. It was in these grim circumstances that Israel was born and against all odds survived and prospered.
You know, funny thing, black South Africans are RATHER ATTACHED to their languages and culture, and gee, blacks are glad that they weren’t wiped out or forced to auto destruct their cultures as per the American model.
Yeah. The South African model is great. Everyone knows that. That's why they called it "apartheid". What is it called now? Anarchy?
bruno,
I am confused by your response. I feel like you are arguing with yourself. Was there some magical difference between the British, Dutch, and French immigrants to South Africa from the British, Spanish, and French immigrants that came to America? Why do you harbor so much extra resentment towards America's European immigrants? The point I was trying to make is that the establishment of liberal democracy in America helped lead to an end of the extermination and cultural genocide of the Native Americans. You don't believe that?
Of course the truth is a little more complex than that.
Always.
Very interesting comment, K. In other words, if the Dutch, French and British immigrants had wiped out the black tribes in South Africa starting 350 years ago, which is when the Cape Colony was founded, you’d be OK with the situation? Oh, hey, that’s nice. Reward the genociders, right?
Utterly confusing logic. I'm sure many European immigrants tried to wipe them out, but luckily for Africans, they already had a high tolerance to Small Pox. Our ancestors in the New World weren't so lucky. But how is making peace and living together in a democratic society despite past injustice anything other than its own "reward"? Is that what this is about, bruno? You want modern day Americans to be punished somehow for what Europeans did to us hundreds of years ago? At least on behalf of my native ancestors, no thanks.
I seriously question your knowledge on my country
Good, you should. Obviously I assume your knowledge of your country's history is better than mine as yours of my country's history is not as good as my knowledge of mine. I think we would both do well to learn of the other's better. I find your countries history to be fascinating and relevant. Please keep discussing it. And please keep studying U.S. history too but read more than just Zinn!
They could not go back to their lands in anti-Semitic Central & Eastern Europe, many of whose people such as the Poles had helped the Nazis in the Holocaust or had turned their backs on the Jews. -David All
This statement "the Poles had helped the Nazis in the Holocaust" is, on the whole, untrue. Nearly half of the victims of the Holocaust in Poland, were, in fact, ethnic Poles. Germany invaded Poland in order to exterminate them along with the Polish Jews. Hitler even set a date: all Poles would be eradicated by 1975, after the Jews were gone. Actually, the first victims gassed at Auschwitz were Polish prisoners. Jews were murdered later.
Just so you know, the Poles and the Jews definitely did fight back against the Germans. My wife was born in Warsaw. She grew up in what used to be the Warsaw Ghetto. My wife's grandmother personally fought against the Nazis and was badly injured in the Warsaw Uprising not to be confused with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. After the revolt was crushed, Hitler leveled Warsaw as punishment. THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND died in just 64 days. That's FIVE THOUSAND people a day. The Allies, the Russians, they did nothing to help while encouraging the uprising over the radio. They just watched Warsaw get destroyed. Remind you of 1991?
I am always amazed that so few Americans know about Polish resistance and blame the Jews and Poles for complicity in their own Holocaust. Although militarily conquered by both Hitler and Stalin, Poland never surrendered, unlike Austria, Norway and France, for example. And they certainly were never allies like Stalin or the Grand Mufti and the Palestinians.
Mojo, you say that today's Palestinians are not responsible for the Holocaust, true, but their leadership was allied with Nazi Germany. What's worse, many Palestinians including the leadership today still seem to deny the Holocaust ever happened! Doesn't this remind you a bit of Arabs who refuse to acknowledge Saddam's crimes? Are these phenomena related?
David, your theory is confusing. The Poles were never Hitler's allies, and yet many Palestinians were. So how was Palestine a safer place for Jews to go than Eastern Europe?
I think the Jews did not want to return to Poland, because it was occupied by the Soviet Union, not because it was inhabited by Poles. I think most Jews wanted to create a new democratic state, not live in a communist dictatorship.
[david] “Bruno, if you really knew anything about history, you would know that few, if any countries, have been formed without some peoples having to suffer for it. Saying you are against a Jewish State for this reason is just another way of saying you are against a Jewish State, period.”
I see.
Well, I want a “Bruno state” for all the people called Bruno. I think I’d like to establish it in Jerusalem, because, heck, why not? I hope too many people don’t suffer when we drive them out of their houses.
Yeah, it seems like the right thing to do.
(Following your reasoning, if Israel is wiped off the map and made the home for the displaced Palestinians, that would be OK, since SOMEBODY has to suffer, right?)
[david] “Should note that the number he gives for Arab civilans killed by Israeli forces are a good deal less then the several thousand Israelis murdered by various Arab groups”
I refer you to :
http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/
...20001127fs.html
“ * Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli forces - 1,407
* Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli civilians - 140
* Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian civilians - 270
* Members of the Israeli forces killed by Palestinian civilians – 135 ”
Nothing like FACTS, eh?
[k] “Was there some magical difference between the British, Dutch, and French immigrants to South Africa from the British, Spanish, and French immigrants that came to America?
Not much difference IMHO.
[k] “Why do you harbor so much extra resentment towards America's European immigrants?”
You misunderstand. I’m pointing out the fact that the European immigrants that WIPED OUT the original people of the country they colonised are held in higher esteem than the European immigrants that mostly tried to get along with the people of the country they colonised. That is somewhat puzzling to me.
(As an aside, there was considerable friction between the Europeans and the Bantu. But there was never an explicit attempt to wipe out the black populace. This could be partly because the early Cape Settlers recognised the value of their black servants and partly because their numbers were too small. The Great Trek into the interior of South Africa may never have been possible given the numerous nature of the Bantu at the time if the rise of Shaka and the Zulus had not resulted in the Mfcane and Difaqane (the crushing and the scattering) of the resident black tribes and the virtual denuding of the interior of these peoples. Truth is that it was black-on-black violence that was the principle enabler of the colonisation of the interior of SA by whites. )
As an a bonus point, it's amusing to me to see the same people that argue FOR the existance of a Jewish state in the ME rail AGAINST the existence of a EUROPEAN state in Africa.
K @ 2:52 am, that's quite a story.
"THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND died in just 64 days. That's FIVE THOUSAND people a day."
That's insane!
Ah, Come, one, Come all, and see
THE AMAZING BRUNO!
Watch his Stupendous Majical Tricks as he turns dead Palestinian Terrorists & Gunmen and the dead Palestinian civilans whom they were gallantly hiding behind into innocent unarmed civilans who were just minding their own business when they were brutally murdered by the Zionist Nazis! (Satire)
Bruno, the key differences between how North America was settled by Europeans & how South Africa was settled was
1). More Europeans did settle in North America then in South Africa &
2). The diseases the Europeans brought with them, most notably Small Pox wiped out 90% of the Native Population. It was disease, not genocide on part of the settlers, that gave North America a large White Majority as compared to the White Minority in South Africa. Otherwise, the Native population in North America would have been at least a large enough minority to work & protest for equal rights as the Blacks & Hispanics have.
Joseph K: Thank you for your comments. I will reply to them when I can, hopefully latter today.
Ah, and yes Bruno, there is nothing like True Facts as compared to your
Good Facts!*
*Hat tip to TV SciFi series, Bablyon5 episode in which a futuristc Earth Govt plans to rewrite history replacing True Facts with Bruno-like Good Facts!
K, thank you for reminding us just how much Poland sufferred at the hands of the Nazis. It is indeed true that, besides the 3 million Polish Jews killed by the Nazis, 3 million Polish Christians were also killed. Hitler's goal was not only the destruction of the Jews, but the reduction of the Poles and other Slavs in his Greater Third Reich that would stretch from Poland to the Ural Mountains to state of permanent slavery with any educated people among the Poles killed. That such severve conditions would cause the Poles to be wiped out over thirty years or so was a Nazi goal. I know that the Poles fought with great gallantry not only in the Warsaw Uprising, but also in the Polish squadrons of the RAF, the 2nd Polish Corps in Italy that took Monte Casino in the Spring of 44, of the 1st Polish Armored Division that closed the Falasie Gap on the German Army in Normandy in Aug. 44. It was tragedy of the greatest degree that such sacrifices did not result in a Free Poland after WWII, but instead in a 40 yr long Russian imposed Communist
Dictatorship.
Unfortu
(Contnued) Unfortuantely none of this changes the fact that Poles, like most of the rest of Eastern Europeans were anti-Semitic and for the most part turned their backs on the Jews during the Holocaust. It is true that relatively few Poles actually helped the Nazis, but most Poles, including the Polish Underground Army, were indifferent to the Jews and did little to help them, even when they were being deported to Auschwitz and Treblinka. Some Poles did help the Jews in various ways at risk of their lives, including hiding them, but they were in the minority.
After the War, Polish hatred of the Jews who survived, about a half million, and tried to return to their Polish homes and incidently reclaim the property the Nazis had stolen from them resulted in anti-Jewish pogroms in Rzeszow in July 1945, in Cracow on Aug. 11th and most well-known, in Kielce on July 4th, 1946 where 37 Jews were murdered & 82 wounded out of a group of about 200 Holocaust survivors. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wki/Kiel...i/
Kielce_pogrom for details) In all three cases, traditional anti-Jewish slanders about the Jews supposed ritual murders of Polish Christians set off the attacks. After the Kielce pogrom, there were no more attempts to return Jewish survivors to their prewar homes in Poland. Most of the Polish Jews, outside of those who were Communists, left after the Kielce Pogrom, the majority of them for Palestine. The Jewish-Polish Communists in turn, were purged as part of the anti-Semitic measures taken throughout the Soviet Bloc following Israel's victory in the Six-Day War of June 1967. Most of the ex-Communists left Poland for Israel and which further reduced Poland's Jewish community from 50,000 to about 5,000. This is roughly the size of today's Jewish Community in Poland.
Sorry, I apparently screwed up the link to the Wikipedia article. Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kie...i/
Kielce_pogrom
If that fails, google, "Kielce pogrom" to link to wikipedia and other articles about Kielce.
Apparently using google will be your best bet at getting a link. For some reason the system is giving a wrong address for Wikipedia articles, at least the one about Kielce.
[david] “The diseases the Europeans brought with them, most notably Small Pox wiped out 90% of the Native Population. It was disease, not genocide on part of the settlers”
David, the smallpox was spread deliberately by British officers through giving infected blankets to the Native Americans.
I refer to:
“http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/
lord_jeff.html
"Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them." [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
[...]
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
* "...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
* "I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
* "...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
* "...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
* "...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).”
Nothing like the FACTS, don’t you think, David?
Yeah, David, it's pretty interesting to not that (so-called) satire is your only response to the one-sided body count of Israelis-vs-Palestinians that I posted.
There's nothing quite like slaughtering people and then claiming that they were evil "terrorists", is there? I've read reports of Israeli soldiers bravely chasing down young (unarmed) Palestinian girls, shooting them and then crowing about the major victory they just achieved.
( Reminds me of all the mythical "plots" that the Jews were supposedly involved in, in Germany, 1930-40. )
It seems that the Israelis learnt a great deal more from the Nazis than most people want to believe.
Now, that's sad.
Always interesting to see how long it takes the more veherment anti-Zionists to compare the Jews to the Nazis. Yeah, Bruno, I am sure you can find all sort of reports about imaginary Israeli atrocities on the Jihadist-type websites you evidently frequent.
And yes, it is true, that in 1763, the British Army deliberated gave rebellious Indian tribes small pox infected blankets. Believe this was only time it was done so deliberately and on a large scale. They knew the small pox would be effective because of previous occasions where the Indians got ahold of small pox infested objects, including taking scalps of those sick with small pox (This is what happened in the massacre at Ft William Henry, made famous in "Last of the Mohicgans". The tribes that brought these scalps home in triumph were devasted by the subsequent epidemic.) It was through the natural occurence of coming into contact with Whites, some of whom were small pox survivors or otherwise genetically carried this and other diseases that the Indians had little natural immunity from that the bulk of North America's Indian population, over a number of generations, had 90% of its population die from.
[david] "And yes, it is true, that in 1763, the British Army deliberated gave rebellious Indian tribes small pox infected blankets. Believe this was only time it was done so deliberately and on a large scale."
Good. In other words, this statement of yours is inaccurate:
[david]"It was disease, not genocide on part of the settlers"
... since genocide by germ is still genocide.
[david] “ Always interesting to see how long it takes the more veherment anti-Zionists to compare the Jews to the Nazis.”
If the cap fits …
[david] “Yeah, Bruno, I am sure you can find all sort of reports about imaginary Israeli atrocities on the Jihadist-type websites you evidently frequent.”
Imaginary?
“The schoolgirl kept on walking toward the tower but was still several hundred metres away when two shots caught her in the leg. She dropped her bag, turned, tried to hobble away, and fell. Four or five soldiers emerged from the army post and shot at her from a distance. Palestinian witnesses and some Israeli soldiers say that the platoon commander moved in closer to put two bullets in the child's head. They say that he then walked away, turned back and fired a stream of bullets into her body. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
israel...1332219,00.html
“The numbers are staggering; one in five Palestinian dead is a child. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) says at least 408 Palestinian children have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/
sto...1007051,00.html
Jihadist?
“In June 2005, the judge advocate general’s office announced that it had opened only 131 criminal investigations into the unlawful death and injury of Palestinians at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces since the current intifada began in September 2000. During that same period, outside any combat situation, Israeli soldiers killed at least 1,722 Palestinians – more than one-third of whom were children – and injured thousands more, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. But since September 2000, the judge advocate general’s office has announced only 28 indictments and seven convictions of Israeli soldiers on charges related to unlawful killing or injury. ”
http://hrw.org/english/docs/
2006...isrlpa12646.htm
The thinking they apply to Palestinians is the same thinking the Nazis applied to them. Point is, Israelis, considering their past SHOULD KNOW BETTER than to act like this.
The thinking they apply to Palestinians is the same thinking the Nazis applied to them. -bruno
No. NO! NO! You and David just don't seem to understand what the Nazis did or the mindset they were in. You don't get it! A few hundred well recorded murders, even if they are racially motivated, is in no way comparable to deliberate and systematic extermination of MILLIONS of people down to nothing. If the Israelis were anything even remotely like the Nazis, there would be no Palestinians. There might not even be any Arabs.
Point is, Israelis, considering their past SHOULD KNOW BETTER than to act like this. -bruno
E X A C T L Y! And the do know better! They know better now to defend themselves from racists who what to wipe them off the map and refuse to acknowledge their right to exist.
K, maybe you should explain that to the Palestinians, who are being slowly eaten up by chunks, and squeezed out of existence. The Nazis tried to destroy a people in a few years, true. Israel is trying to do the same to the Palestinians over decades. The final aim is the same, as far as I'm concerned. Israel even denies there is such a thing as a Palestinian nation.
Yeah, Bruno, the poor Palestinians, victims of the world's slowest genocide. One that has lasted for more then 60 years during which the Palestinians have tripled in population! And, Bruno, if you actually knew anything about current Israeli politics, instead of repeating the slogans of whatever Marxist Party you belong to, you would know that a majority of Israelis do recognize the Palestinians as a Nation. It is the Palestinians, as K pointed out, who do not recognize Israel and chant, "From the River(Jordan) to the Sea (the Mediterran), Palestine will be Free". And far, from advancing, Israel has been withdraining in recent years: Completely from the Gaza Strip & Lebanon, partially from the West Bank.
K, thank you for eloquently pointing out the vast difference between the occasional abuses committed by the Israelis as they do their best to defend against those finantics who are doing their best to kill Israelis regardless of their age & sex and the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.
K (and everyone else) When dealing with the Brunos of the world, you have to remember that they are die-hard Marxists who responded to the collaspe of the Soviet Union & effective end of Communism by jumping in bed with the Jihadists. They still have the rhetoric which distorts and frequently reverses the truth, i.e. calling a successful defense against Jihad Terrorism, "Genocide"; just as in the old Cold War Days, "Imperialist Aggression" meant the defeat of Communist-backed country. It is just now Bruno & Co. uses their hateful rhetoric in the service of their Jihadi Masters.
Commenting by HaloScan
