reading aljazeera: stuff for thought

[javafiend]

She should have taken and kept a lot more of the land that she captured in the 1967 war of self-defense.

Let's see, that was the war in which the Israeli military deliberately launched an unprovoked attack on a US naval ship.

With allies such as these....

***
By the way, the best book I have found about Mossadegh and the coup of '53 is All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer. Kinzer also wrote Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala.

The single most useful summary of CIA activities abroad has got to be Killing Hope : U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II by William Blum. Essential reading for anyone interested about the unvarnished truth about the actions of the fedgov abroad - as compared to the daily propaganda served to us about America's alleged support for "democracy" and "human rights."

Just the most recent example of the gap between rhetoric and reality appears on the front page of The New York Times. Turns out that the latest election in Iraq was rigged.

 

[Byron Quick]

A moral, legal, or any other kind of rational justification for illegal-immigration and then rebellion, followed by minority rule based on religious identity.

shootinstudent,

I think you need to go back and look at the history some more. Israel was formed in 1948 by UN resolution. Its Arab neighbors then attacked. The history of the matter is not quite as simple as the illegal immigration, rebellion, etc. that you continue to parrot. But there is something, I'm curious about: illegal immigration as you continually spout. Are you maintaining that laws promulgated by a colonial occupier were valid? Or before the British, how about the Ottoman Turks? You're taking some strange bedfellows there, friend.

The Palestinians that lost their land? Most of them rented their land from absentee landlords in Beirut. Israel could let a descendant of each Palestinian landowner come back to Israel and the Palestinians wouldn't have a majority.

And, hey, while you're looking for people who've been mistreated-talk to a Coptic Egyptian sometimes. One of the descendants of the original Egyptians. You know, before the Arabs invaded and stole their land. There are still several million of them in Egypt. I'll give you a hint of their treatment by those civilized Arabs: the Coptics would think that being treated as the Palestinians are treated was a wonderful improvement.

Also, there is no credible evidence anywhere that, if the neighboring Arab nations had not attacked Israel, any Palestinians would have dispossessed. The Arabs did not want to live in peace with Israel. Every time they've fought a war with Israel, they've started it. Personally, it's a darned shame that we had to stop Israel in 1973. There was nothing between the IDF and Damascus, the Egyptian 3rd Army was surrounded without water in the Sinai and all of the momentum was with Israel. The USSR started rumbling and the US was faced with a choice of the war spreading beyond the Middle East. Apparently the Arab states have learned that they are just not in the same league as Israel. Not in any area.

Just the most recent example of the gap between rhetoric and reality appears on the front page of The New York Times. Turns out that the latest election in Iraq was rigged.

javafiend,

You wouldn't kind of engage in some hyperbole there would you? The article is talking about an investigation, friend. Of lopsided totals both for and against. Is this how you normally draw your conclusions? If so, you conclusions are more suspect than the vote that is being investigated.

New York Times: It is difficult to imagine why any Shiite or Kurdish political leaders would resort to fraud. Together the two groups make up about 80 percent of Iraq's population.

New York Times:...although there were reports of similarly lopsided votes against the constitution in some Sunni areas.

Reading comprehension is a prerequiste to forming valid conclusions from what is read.

 

[shootinstudent]

But there is something, I'm curious about: illegal immigration as you continually spout. Are you maintaining that laws promulgated by a colonial occupier were valid? Or before the British, how about the Ottoman Turks? You're taking some strange bedfellows there, friend.

The British were quite sympathetic to Zionist movement at the time. They promulgated the anti-immigration laws on the demands of the Palestinians. The Turks were pretty much like gangsters: they let locals run their own show as long as taxes were paid. No real conflict there....but it's clear from every source that the people who actually lived in Palestine did not want the immigration that was happening.

The British and the UN withdrew and voted for a partitioned state in response to zionist militia violence and arab reprisals. The Israelis actually bombed a hotel full of british administrators as part of their campaign to drive them out. I think it's pretty clear who started that war. I'd like to know: do you think the immigration movement was legitimate? If so, why? And in addition...do recent immigrants have the right to form a government that excludes the people who were already living on the land they immigrated to?

The UN did not vote for modern Israel. It voted for a partitioned state, with an internationally ruled Jerusalem. The first move the Israelis made was to invade the part of the partition that was reserved for Arabs. That was the 1948 war that Israel started.

The Palestinians that lost their land? Most of them rented their land from absentee landlords in Beirut. Israel could let a descendant of each Palestinian landowner come back to Israel and the Palestinians wouldn't have a majority.

Property titles don't determine the right to rule. Selling land to foreigners doesn't mean that the people who live within a country's borders get no say in their own government. I don't see how this is relevant.

there is no credible evidence anywhere that, if the neighboring Arab nations had not attacked Israel, any Palestinians would have dispossessed. The Arabs did not want to live in peace with Israel. Every time they've fought a war with Israel, they've started it. Personally, it's a darned shame that we had to stop Israel in 1973.

"What ifs" don't determine land title anyway. The fact that China might someday annex Vietnam doesn't give the US the right to invade Vietnam, kick out the inhabitants who protest, and deny voting rights to the rest.

Even today, Palestinians are the majority of the people in the geographical area that Israel occupies. Yet they get no say in how that land is governed. I think a state of affairs such as this in the age of self-determination is one of the major contributing factors to terrorism and anti-Western feelings. The same reasons that might, for example, lead you to support democracy in Iraq should lead to the same conclusion on Palestine. And Israel has a working model for that...it's just that it won't/can't include the Palestinians who rightfully occupy the land, and so the only answer is to respect the original UN agreement for a partition.

I appreciate the reasonable response, but I continue to disagree. I'd like to disclaim the bunk liberty incident, which is cited as far as I'm concerned only by foaming-at-the-mouth anti-semites.

 

[Byron Quick]

The UN did not vote for modern Israel. It voted for a partitioned state, with an internationally ruled Jerusalem. The first move the Israelis made was to invade the part of the partition that was reserved for Arabs. That was the 1948 war that Israel started.

That's strange. Please give primary source cites for your contention that Israel started the 1948 war. Everything I've ever seen states that the territory of Israel as mandated by the UN was attacked by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

Arab Legion ring a bell?

Talked to any Coptic Egyptians about life today under the civilized Arabs and how it has improved in the past century?

bunk liberty incident

bunk? Are you asserting that the USS Liberty incident did not occur? Or maybe it was a deception job by the CIA and Mossad for some nefarious purpose or what?

Israel has done a good bit that I think was counterproductive to its own interests. Such as bulldozing houses of Palestinians with only a peripheral connection to terrorists. However, if a community of otherwise blameless people gives aid, protection, shelter, and succor to people that are bombing civilians, including women and children, then it is only a matter of time before I will be conducting operations against those otherwise blameless people. By the same token, when a guerilla unit places a military outpost in a building sharing walls with a school on one side and a hospital on the other...for the twin purposes of hopefully using the school and hospital as a shield or, if attacked, as a propaganda ploy,i.e., those evil Israelis bombed a school and hospital-well, I have little respect for such "warriors."

The same logic applies to the Stern Gang bombing the Kind David Hotel. The British should have had better sense than to site their military headquarters in a civilian edifice. The British turned a civilian building into a legitimate military target. By the way, the Stern Gang had little, if any, backing from any of the mainstream Zionist organizations. They considered the Stern Gang to be too extreme. Menachem Begin, future prime minister and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was one of the Stern Gang's leaders at the time.

Property titles don't determine the right to rule. Selling land to foreigners doesn't mean that the people who live within a country's borders get no say in their own government. I don't see how this is relevant.

What does, then? The Jews claim to the land of Israel predates the Arabs' claim to the land by about two millenia. The Arabs, like the Jews, are invaders, not indigenous, in that area. In fact, the Arabs, at the time of the Jews arrival in the future Palestine, were a small group of tribes that didn't even control a large minority of the Arabian peninsula. (A small group of small tribes in the southern tip of the peninsula at the time.) Is your position that the latest invader has a better claim than the prior invader? Before the Jews conquered Canaan, the Canaanites lived there. I believe the Canaanites were a branch of the Phoenicians. Fine, the Phoenicians own it. Wait, there are no Phoenicians anymore. Sounds to me as if the Jews have a better claim to the sovereignty of the land by about two thousand years. Unless, of course, you wish to defend the actions of a Roman emperor as being legitimate.

No matter how you slice it, you will be supporting a people who took that land by conquest. Both sides gained that land by conquest. Pointing a finger at the Israelis and saying they stole it from the Palestinians leaves you in the position of supporting the Palestinians Arabs who are the descendants of invaders who stole it from the prior owners. You're supporting conquerors no matter which way you turn. After looking at Arab culture and looking at Israeli culture, I'll support the Israelis, thank you very much. Anyone who tries to assert that the Israelis are more barbaric or more unjust than the Arabs, including the Palestinians, is not looking at the facts.

On the day that Israel declared its independence, the Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" (Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 333).

The Arab League Secretary-General really sounds like a peace lover doesn't he? Tell me, how did he plan on having a "war of extermination and a momentuous massacre" without attacking Israel? I suppose the war plan was to let Israel start the war before the extermination and massacre got rolling? If so, what a unique plan for genocide.

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni stated, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199).

Poor Palestinian victims, thwarted in their goals of genocide and murder.

IDF Arabs
Tanks 1 w/o gun 40
Armored cars (w/ cannon) 2 200
Armored cars (w/o cannon) 120 300
Artillery 5 140
AA and AT guns 24 220
Warplanes 0 74
Scout planes 28 57
Navy (armed ships) 3 12

(Source: Jehuda Wallach (ed.), "Not on a silver platter")


Yes, it certainly looks as if the Israelis were well prepared to start a war, doesn't it?
IDF vs. Arab table of equipment. Yessirree, the Israelis were certainly in a position to go starting wars, weren't they?

 

[matis]

Kurush,


By our acts do we define ourselves.


You choose to side with the Arab bus-bombers, with those who joyfully shot into the Hatuel family car, killing the mother. Who then RETURNED to shoot her 4 daughters to death, including the infant. This barbarism they regularly gloat about, take prideful credit for -- hand out candies in celebration to THEIR children.


You choose to narrow your historical focus sufficiently to make them look like the victims and the victims as the aggressors.


Your choices reveal who you are.



You weren't impressed with Bob Dylan's song. I don't suppose you'll care for what this Spanish journalist wrote, either.

It has, however, great bearing on the protagonists in this struggle. And it has great bearing for all of us, even here in the States.





Europe died at Auschwitz.

· Written by a Christian Spanish journalist

· Sebastian Villar Rodriguez.


I was strolling along Cours Raval (Barcelona) when I suddenly realized that Europe died at Auschwitz: We assassinated six million Jews to import in return twenty millions Muslims;

We burned at Auschwitz culture, intelligence and ability to create; We burned a people of the world, people that proclaim itself "God Chosen" because it is this same people that gave humanity emblematic figures capable of changing the face of history (Christ, Marx, Einstein, Freud) people that is at the root of essentials towards progress and well being.

We have to admit that Europe, by relaxing its borders, and with the doubtful pretext of tolerance by bending to a fictitious cultural relativism, has consequently opened its doors to twenty millions Muslims mostly illiterate and fanatic& Muslims who prepare, at worst, attacks like those of Manhattan or Madrid, Muslims cramped in apartments provided to them by official Social Services.

Therefore, we exchanged Culture for Fanatism, Ability to create for Will to destroy, Intelligence for Superstition; we have exchanged the Jewish instinct of transcendence which, even in the worst imaginable conditions, have always aimed at a better world of peace, for a pulse or urge of suicide; we exchanged the pride to live for the fanatic obsession of death: our death and that of our children. What a mistake we have committed!





I will do everything in my power to keep Israel -- and my adopted country, the United States, from committing this same fatal error.



matis

 

[shootinstudent]

Byron,

The attacks on the British were part of the war to establish the Israeli state. It is on that basis that I say the Israelis started the 1948 war; had they not illegally immigrated to Palestine and revolted to form their own minority government, there would have been no war. I think it's entirely plausible to see the Arab attacks as a move to maintain control over land that had recently been occupied by rebellious illegal immigrants, although the aim of genocide was certainly ignoble and wrong, and I'm glad it didn't happen.

As for the 67 war, I have this for a primary source:

In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1982-1984/55%20Address%20by%20Prime%20Minister%20Begin%20at%20the%20National

That was what Menachim Begin said about 67. Apparently the preemptive strike doctrine did not begin with George Bush.

The British turned a civilian building into a legitimate military target. By the way, the Stern Gang had little, if any, backing from any of the mainstream Zionist organizations.

That's fine, but the salient fact is that the Zionist organizations were comprised almost entirely of immigrants to the Palestine region. They had absolutely zero backing from the vast majority of the people who had been born in, and whose families had lived in, the land for centuries.

What does, then? The Jews claim to the land of Israel predates the Arabs' claim to the land by about two millenia. The Arabs, like the Jews, are invaders, not indigenous, in that area. In fact, the Arabs, at the time of the Jews arrival in the future Palestine, were a small group of tribes that didn't even control a large minority of the Arabian peninsula.

This argument is totally moot. Religious histories of who sat in one land should give zero bearing on who has a right to control what in modern times. Can you imagine how successful a native american argument to expel the united states from north america would be? It's the same logic that would allow the immigrants to Palestine in the 30's to claim that the bible and the history of the jews in Palestine gave them a right to rule.

Take the bible out of the equation, and you've got Palestinian Arabs who were the majority in that land for more than a thousand years, continuously, prior to the 1948 war. During the war, Arabs continued to be the majority. After the war up to today, Arabs were and are the majority in the land that Israel occupies. Yet they do not have any real say in the government there. That is my problem, and that's why I think the current state of affairs is unjust, not because I think the fact that Arabs conquered Palestine 1300 years ago gives them a right to rule.

After looking at Arab culture and looking at Israeli culture, I'll support the Israelis, thank you very much. Anyone who tries to assert that the Israelis are more barbaric or more unjust than the Arabs, including the Palestinians, is not looking at the facts.

I have repeatedly expressed my admiration for Israel's ability to provide civil rights to its citizens and for a model of functioning democracy. The problem is that it doesn't include a huge number of people who should by any secular and democratic view of the situation have the right to vote and participate in the government that controls their homes.

This is not a choice between "arab culture" and "Israeli culture." Just as I think it's absurd to let the people who bombed the hotel and shot palestinian women and children in the war for independence speak for all of Judaism, I think it's equally absurd to claim that terrorists and dictators speak for "arab culture." Both Arab and Israeli jewish culture have long and honorable traditions, and I'm advocating a place for both, that respects the rights of both. I think the original UN partition plan would've accomplished that, but it hasn't been respected. Because of that, even though there are millions more Palestinian Arabs than there are Israelis within the geographical area controlled by Israel, they have no say whatsoever in what the government that dominates them does. That is unjust and undemocratic, unless of course you think that "cultural superiority" or something similar justifies depriving people of voting and other civil rights. I do not subscribe to that view, and so in sum, whatever the palestinians believe, they have a right to participate in the political process that governs them. That means either Israel returns to the UN partition agreement, or grants them full voting rights.

bunk? Are you asserting that the USS Liberty incident did not occur? Or maybe it was a deception job by the CIA and Mossad for some nefarious purpose or what?

Please reread my comment above. Israel is a US ally. I was calling the previous poster's rabid anti-semitic agenda bunk, not the incident itself. I think it was clearly an accidental attack, as happens in every war. I've not posted one single "jew conpsiracy!" or any other similar anti-semitic remark, and I'm really becoming frustrated by the fact that my comments on Israel's policies keep being equated with anti-semitism. I'm not here advocating wiping out Israel, Jews, or any other religion. I am advocating democracy and a fair look at the situation in Palestine through the lens of a presumption for self-rule.

Edited to add:

Not really germane to Palestine, since Egypt speaks for itself, but I thought I'd address this:

Talked to any Coptic Egyptians about life today under the civilized Arabs and how it has improved in the past century?

If you ask Boutros Boutros Ghali, he'd probably say it's very good. On the whole, it's certainly worse now than it was before WWI, when the Arab states had not yet been fully infiltrated by the radicals who're preaching violence and hatred today. But in comparison to what life was like under the Christian rule that predated Arab rule....vast improvement. The Coptics only exist today because of the Arab conquests; they were being wiped out by their "fellow Christian" rulers before that. But again, this isn't really relevant, because Egypt doesn't speak for all Arabs, just like Menachim Begin and Yigal Amir don't speak for all Jews.

 

[Byron Quick]

So Jewish attacks on British forces started the 1948 war. What sophistry! Tell me, what about Palestinian attacks on the same British forces during the same time period? Sorry, you're picking and choosing among the facts here. And it's actually amusing in a nauseating way. In 1948, the US, the USSR, and the Secretary-General of the UN all denounced as illegal aggression the military actions of the Arab nations of Transjordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon. Only the People's Republic of China, those well-known supporters of human rights, supported the Arab state's actions.


Arabs living within the borders of Israel (not the occupied territories) DO have the vote. In fact, Israeli Arabs have members in the Knesset. Are you advocating that Israel should formally annex the occupied territories thus giving the Palestinians an Israeli vote? I've a suggestion if that is so, don't go to the West Bank and say it.

Sorry, friend, you need to go back and look at the history again. Your view has become lopsided somehow.

I never mentioned Biblical or religious history, you did. I'm talking actual history as supported by historical documents and the archaelogical record.

I'm of two minds about the USS Liberty incident. Yes, so-called friendly fire incidents occur in wars. (Friendly fire, isn't.) But I have difficulty giving credence to a friendly fire incident of that duration in daylight. Also, the sailors who were there do not believe it was mistaken identity.

 

[silverlance]

isn't i strange

that all the arab states that declare sympathy for the poor palestinians don't like opening their borders to them?

 

[shootinstudent]

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

Byron, there's the text of the UN agreement on a partition that was voted upon. You'll also find a list of the nations that voted for and against the agreement. There's no blaming the Arabs for the violence, just as there's no blaming the Jews.

Arabs living within the borders of Israel (not the occupied territories) DO have the vote. In fact, Israeli Arabs have members in the Knesset.

Please compare the borders of Israel to the borders identified in the UN resolution above. I also include the occupation zones, since those areas are denied national independence and are subject to Israeli military rule, but even without including the post 67 borders, it's clear that Israel has violated the UN agreement for its establishment of a Jewish state. There were mass explusions in the past, and even now the reason there are "settlements" instead of outright annexation in the post-67 borders is the vote. There has been no secret of the purpose of the Jewish settlements; to provide a large enough jewish population so that, enfranchised, the West Bank and Gaza wouldn't have had a majority of Arab voters.

I never mentioned Biblical or religious history, you did. I'm talking actual history as supported by historical documents and the archaelogical record.

Okay, so what purpotedly legitimate land claims do the Israelis have in the 20th century besides "the bible makes Israel the homeland of the Jews?" The vast majority of the people who established Israel were not born in Palestine. The vast majority of the people who did not want Israel established, something like 80 percent of the population at the time, were born in Palestine to parents who were born in Palestine. So what was the Israeli claim to land in the middle east in 1948? If you could elaborate that, I think we could have a better discussion. "The Jews ruled Palestine in pre-Roman times" is not a justification. If it were, any people with long standing roots in Rome would seem to have a justifiable and legal argument for invading and annexing all of Europe. So do you have anything else to support a Jewish claim to Palestine in 1948?

Please remember, when you attempt this, that most of the Jews who rebelled were immigrants from around the world, not people born in Palestine. So your justification will have to explain how, based on an ethnic origin in the region 2000 years prior, the founders of Israel would have a modern moral and legal justification to immigrate and then change the government of a territory against the wishes of its present, legal occupants.

I'm of two minds about the USS Liberty incident. Yes, so-called friendly fire incidents occur in wars. (Friendly fire, isn't.) But I have difficulty giving credence to a friendly fire incident of that duration in daylight. Also, the sailors who were there do not believe it was mistaken identity.

I'm of one mind on it. The one or two sailors who now say that it was not friendly fire are either A) Rabid anti-Semites or B) Weren't even on deck when it happened. I can find only one group of people that consistently repeat the mantra that it was a deliberate attack: Jew-haters. The Navy did a full investigation, the CO signed off on it, and there is not a shred of evidence to support either a cover-up or grand mistake.

 

[javafiend]

Baghdad - Iraqi election officials said today that they were investigating what they described as "unusually high" vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces, where as many 99 percent of the voters were reported to have cast ballots in favor of Iraq's new constitution, raising the possibility that the results of Saturday's referendum could be called into question.

99%.

Kinda like Saddam's elections of old.

The article is talking about an investigation, friend. Of lopsided totals both for and against

Maybe the cheating "on both sides" will even out and they'll end up with a a Chicago-style democracy. Or hell, maybe it will end up like south Texas, where enthusiasm for Lyndon B. Johnson ran so high that people rose up out of the grave and voted in alphabetical order. Or maybe like the "democracy" that we have in this country where elections are rigged, where the overwhelming majority of congressional seats are considered safe, and each session of Congress on the whole probably sees fewer new faces than communist parties of old.

<whew>
So proud we're bringing democracy to the Ay-rabs. And it's only cost us $300 billion to date, the lives of three soldiers per day, and the prestige of the United States.

I don't mean to pick on you, Byron, but you caught me in an especially cynical mood today.

 

[Art Eatman]

Y'know, I can't understand why the Democrats and liberals are mad at Bush. He's just following JFK's dictum, "Go anywhere, pay any price, to further the cause of liberty and democracy..."

I assume there are those among us who think the Iraqis would be better off had we not relieved them of their father-figure leader, a wee tad stern and overbearing though he may have been. They're certainly not competent to exercise any degree of self-determination.

Sarcasm mode off.

As far as shooting wars, Iraq is certainly easier on us than Korea, with its 60 dead per day, and I won't even talk about Iwo Jima with its 4,000+...

Israel and its wars? One of my favorite memories of all time is of Abba Eban at the UN, drawing himself up to his full 5'-4" and saying, "There are three million Jews. There are 200 million Arabs. Is the distinguished delegate from Egypt trying to say we surrounded them?"

Note that only late in the Clinton era did the Palestinian Charter have the paragraph removed--grudgingly--which did everything but say "genocide" about ending Israel's existence. I'm dubious that the sentiment has changed.

Art

 

[shootinstudent]

I assume there are those among us who think the Iraqis would be better off had we not relieved them of their father-figure leader, a wee tad stern and overbearing though he may have been. They're certainly not competent to exercise any degree of self-determination.

Art, you'd have to count me out of that group. I support regime change throughout the middle east, although I think significant mistakes have been made in Iraq, including pegging the war on WMD's that never materialized, and its timing.

Note that only late in the Clinton era did the Palestinian Charter have the paragraph removed--grudgingly--which did everything but say "genocide" about ending Israel's existence. I'm dubious that the sentiment has changed.

I can't disagree with that either. There is no doubt that many of the Arabs in Palestine and surrounding countries hate Israel and Jews. I think the topic of this thread addresses that, though. The combined support for unpopular dictators, along with continuing denial that the foundations of Israel are of dubious moral and legal grounding, are helping to fan the flames that terrorists are using to keep up their own propaganda war.

I think seeking change in Israel to be more respectful of Palestinian rights follows the same logic that removing Saddam (at least in theory) and the Saudi royals follows. If you remove the conditions that breed poverty and radicalism, you will also remove the conditions that breed terrorism.

 

[GoRon]

This is not a choice between "arab culture" and "Israeli culture." Just as I think it's absurd to let the people who bombed the hotel and shot palestinian women and children in the war for independence speak for all of Judaism, I think it's equally absurd to claim that terrorists and dictators speak for "arab culture." Both Arab and Israeli jewish culture have long and honorable traditions, and I'm advocating a place for both, that respects the rights of both.

So you are actually postulating that if the Israelis gave the right to vote to the Palestinians in the occupied zones that the new Palestinian majority would respect the Israelis rights and their culture?

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Y'know, I can't understand why the Democrats and liberals are mad at Bush. He's just following JFK's dictum, "Go anywhere, pay any price, to further the cause of liberty and democracy..."

Only one or two problems with the patron saint JFK...

Bay of Pigs

Vietnam

Robert McNamara

Cuban Missle Crisis

Daddy was a rum runner

Youngest brother is a drunken womanizing idiot

Just to name four, or five, or six...

 

[Byron Quick]

Mongo,

You might need to change your description of JFK. You make him sound like a good ole boy from a fine Southern family!

Shootinshooter,

So the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in his 1948 call on his Moslem brothers to murder all the Jews, was basing his hatred on the way that the Israelis had been mistreating Palestinians? I think not. Once again, check the record. Moderate Palestinians who wished to reach common ground with the Zionisits were murdered by the Palestinian extremists. In fact, go back to 1930 and check the record. Look at the fate of every prominent Palestinian who wished to live in peace with the Jews. Each and every one of them were murdered by the people you support.

As I've said earlier, Israel has done many things that I believe were eventually contrary to her own interests. But the Palestinians have a record that would make a maggot puke.

 

[shootinstudent]

Byron,

So the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, in his 1948 call on his Moslem brothers to murder all the Jews, was basing his hatred on the way that the Israelis had been mistreating Palestinians? I think not. Once again, check the record. Moderate Palestinians who wished to reach common ground with the Zionisits were murdered by the Palestinian extremists. In fact, go back to 1930 and check the record. Look at the fate of every prominent Palestinian who wished to live in peace with the Jews. Each and every one of them were murdered by the people you support.

Okay, let me get this straight: The hotel bombers don't speak for all the Zionists, but when there's terrorism in the name of Palestinian arabs, they do? I don't support terrorism. I do support democracy and self-determination.

The call in 1948 followed a decade of massive illegal immigration, along with several massacres of anti-immigrant Palestinians and Palestinian civillians. (Yes, the Arabs killed jews too, I know that.) So the Mufti's call was hardly out of the blue...that's what happens when radicals collide. Was it wrong? Yes, most certainly. Is killing Palestinians who want to make peace wrong? Yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the origins of the state of Israel were violent and contrary to what the inhabitants of Palestine, as a majority, wanted. The immigrants who went had no right to establish a state through violence, and once the state was established, they were even less justified in violating the UN agreement on partition and racing to occupy every last bit of land reserved for the Arabs. The fact that some Palestinians were genocidal and terrorist doesn't change that, just like the fact that some zionists were genocidal terrorists doesn't make all jews deserving of slaughter.

If you're still interested, I'd like to see your response to the questions I asked you about about moral or legal grounds for the immigrant-minority revolt that established Israel, and for the subsequent land grabs and denial of the vote to Palestinians.

As I've said earlier, Israel has done many things that I believe were eventually contrary to her own interests. But the Palestinians have a record that would make a maggot puke.

This is true of both sides. It's best not to let terrorists speak for the majority. Just as I won't let the zionists who massacred Palestinians in order to drive them out of their towns speak for all of Judaism, I won't allow terrorists like Hamas to speak for all of Palestine. The Palestinian "record" does not change one bit the fact that they were the majority in the region, and that their land and government were radically changed without their consent. The situation continues today, and it's causing more and more people to be convinced that the US and Israel simply will not give Palestinians a fair shake....that is why people like aljazeera find willing ears, and that's why it has to change if we're going to stop terrorism.

GoRon,

So you are actually postulating that if the Israelis gave the right to vote to the Palestinians in the occupied zones that the new Palestinian majority would respect the Israelis rights and their culture?

No, I'm not. And I'm postulating that the reason for that is a long series of illegal action that's fueled anger against Israel. The point about voting was for two reasons: one, to illustrate that the occupation of a territory with millions of people (millions more than there are Israeli citizens) who do not consent to the occupation, is not just. The second reason was to show that even though some Arabs vote in Israel, Israel never has wanted to (and couldn't while maintaining its religious character) include the Arabs who are rightful occupants of the land.

If you can't give them an equal say in your political process, then the only alternative is to allow them to build their own government. Hence, I support a withdrawal to at a minimum the pre 1967 borders, along with international rule for Old Jerusalem (to guarantee freedom of access to religious sites for both sides).

 

[Byron Quick]

If you're still interested, I'd like to see your response to the questions I asked you about about moral or legal grounds for the immigrant-minority revolt that established Israel, and for the subsequent land grabs and denial of the vote to Palestinians.

I'm sorry but I'm afraid that our basic premises are far enough apart that we can do no more than talk past each other on that issue. You want to cut things off at a particular point in history and say we're not going back any further. Tell you what, look at what is known of the demographics of the population in Palestine at the time of the Arab conquest. Ask yourself, these same question about that invasion in relation to that population. When you've got the answers to that and share them, then maybe we can talk further. I'll give you a hint: many Jews never left Palestine durng the Diaspora.

 

[shootinstudent]

You want to cut things off at a particular point in history and say we're not going back any further. Tell you what, look at what is known of the demographics of the population in Palestine at the time of the Arab conquest. Ask yourself, these same question about that invasion in relation to that population. When you've got the answers to that and share them, then maybe we can talk further.

At least for clarification...does your idea of the right to Jewish rule in Palestine go back to the year 637 AD, when Palestine had been a Roman territory for nearly 1000 years???? I do think that 1300 years of not inhabiting a region extinguishes a land claim. There's absolutely no principled way to justify a land claim based on a conquest that long ago without also justifying absurd results in other parts of the world, like the Italians having the right to take france, germany, and spain because those barbarian goths and franks illegally occupied it back in the 5th century.

My claim that the Palestinians had the right to occupy the land is based on the fact that they had been there for at a minimum centuries, and they were the majority. The zionists who established Israel had been in other countries for at least that long, and decided for religious reasons that Palestine should be theirs. In a world that doesn't give force of law to people's radical religious claims, I think that's not even a close call in terms of who has a greater claim to the land.

 

[Byron Quick]

For your information, there are Jews who never left Palestine. Whose ancestors were there the entire time and who suffered the exact same thing at the hands of the Arab invaders that you are complaining about the Palestinians suffering.


So, in the presence of Jews inhabiting the land since the time of ancient Israel, at exactly what point, in your view, was their claim to sovereignty justly and lawfully extinguished? Majority or minority-so what? The Arab majority was a majority of invading conquerors.

Tell me, for the sake of discussion, if China were located where Canada was and the Chinese invaded the US and ran the present inhabitants out-that would extinguish all legal and just claims to sovereignty of the descendants of the Americans?

Apparently, you believe it does. I don't.

 

[shootinstudent]

Whose ancestors were there the entire time and who suffered the exact same thing at the hands of the Arab invaders that you are complaining about the Palestinians suffering.

That's actually incorrect. The Jews were saved, if anything, by the Arab conquests. Read Fulk of Chartres' account of the Crusaders' attitude towards jews and you'll see what I mean. Jews before the 20th century were protected by the Muslim states. Indeed, Muslims were the only people who consistently protected Jews.

So, in the presence of Jews inhabiting the land since the time of ancient Israel, at exactly what point, in your view, was their claim to sovereignty justly and lawfully extinguished? Majority or minority-so what? The Arab majority was a majority of invading conquerors.

Yes. Being a small minority for a thousand years extinguishes your right to govern the entire country without the consent of any of the other people who live there. That is not controversial, as you'll see below.

Tell me, for the sake of discussion, if China were located where Canada was and the Chinese invaded the US and ran the present inhabitants out-that would extinguish all legal and just claims to sovereignty of the descendants of the Americans?

After 1000 years, when the US had become primarily chinese and chinese speaking, you're darned straight it would. If you have no concept of water under the bridge, then you have to believe that the US and all of Europe's governments have absolutely no right to exist whatsoever.

In contrast, the Arab-Israel question is not past....Arabs are a still a majority in Palestine, and they're still not allowed to participate in the government there.

Let me ask you this: If tomorrow a suddenly powerful Native american minority army was able to capture Washington DC and kick out the entire US government, trash the constitution, and set itself up to be unopposable militarily....would you say that those native americans had a moral and legal right to do what they did, and further that they had a right to exclude everyone but native americans from voting???

That is why I distinguish between old minorities and long past events and current majorities that are denied political participation or self-government. Israel's foundations were definitely illegal, and now that it's a developed state in place, I'm not denying it's right to exist...but I am denying that it has any right at all to, coming from illegal and violent origins, continue to deny the majority of the people under its dominion the right to self-government.

 

[Byron Quick]

[That's actually incorrect. The Jews were saved, if anything, by the Arab conquests. Read Fulk of Chartres' account of the Crusaders' attitude towards jews and you'll see what I mean./QUOTE]

Are you implying that the Jews were saved from the Crusaders by the Arab conquest? I think you need to check your timeline. The Crusades occurred after the Arab conquest. Therefore, exactly how did the Arab conquest save the Jews from Crusades that were still centuries in the future? Now, many of the contigents of the Crusades used the Crusades as an equal opportunity to steal, rape, and kill anyone they could-including the Christians of Byzantium and the Middle East. Tell me, how much self government and self determination were the "People of the Book" allowed under Arab rule? They were allowed to exist-with the payment of a tax for that privilege. Guess what happened to the Jews-and Christians-who couldn't pay the tax?

Like I said before, many of your conclusions are skewed. You've got your timeline messed up in several places. About the only countries that agree with your take on the 1948 war is the PRC and the Arab states. Wonder why? Personally, if the only people that agreed with my stand were Arab dictators and communist Chinese, I'd be re-examining my position feverishly.

 

[gunsmith]

heh

Let me ask you this: If tomorrow a suddenly powerful Native american minority army was able to capture Washington DC and kick out the entire US government, trash the constitution, and set itself up to be unopposable militarily....would you say that those native americans had a moral and legal right to do what they did, and further that they had a right to exclude everyone but native americans from voting???

I guess it's good for us that guns are banned on most Indian Reservations

 

[shootinstudent]

Are you implying that the Jews were saved from the Crusaders by the Arab conquest? I think you need to check your timeline. The Crusades occurred after the Arab conquest. Therefore, exactly how did the Arab conquest save them? Tell me, how much self government and self determination were the "People of the Book" allowed under Arab rule? They were allowed to exist-with the payment of a tax for that privilege. Guess what happened to the Jews-and Christians-who couldn't pay the tax?

Yes on all three counts. The Jews were being slowly wiped out by the ultra-radical christians who ruled the Byzantine empire (those same people who were killing the coptic and syrian christians for "unorthodox" belief). The Arab conquest introduced religious freedom to both christians and jews, and the arabs were welcomed because of it. For a primary source on the egyptian christians embracing Arab muslim rule, read:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/642Egypt-conq2.html

The tax was par for the course, and certainly a much better system than any other that existed at the time in terms of religious freedom. Paying a protection tax and being allowed to keep your religion unharmed was definitely not an option that the Jews or Copts received from the "Christian" emperors. It was usually assessed communally, so a single person wouldn't have faced consequences for nonpayment from the Muslim rulers.

You can go through a long list of primary sources a directory up at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook.html

Like I said before, many of your conclusions are skewed. You've got your timeline messed up in several places. About the only countries that agree with your take on the 1948 war is the PRC and the Arab states. Wonder why?

No, I got the timeline quite right. Before the crusades, Christians were killing Jews and the Arabs stopped them. During the crusades, Arab perserverance protected them. After the crusades, the Muslim lands continued to be a rare safety zone for Jews. And with the Turkish millet system, religion was even less important to the Muslim rulers...that was literally more like a "pay us and we don't care at all what you do" system than anything else. It's a real shame that radicals have taken over the Arab world and torn it to shreds in the 20th century, because the history is certainly one of moral development.

My take on the 1948 war is accepted by every single country except for the US and Israel. Most agreed to a partitioned state; no UN meeting has ever agreed to Israel occupying all of the territory it does, nor has it ever approved of the land taken in 1967. Land seized in wartime cannot legally be annexed, which is why there is literally zero (outside of the US and Israel) support for that position. (See the Avalon project page I cited to you for a long list of security council resolutions on the subject).

 

[dzimmerm]

Democracy?

I don't remember democracy as being a valid form of government for long term stability. I thought a Representative Republic was the form of government that has more potential for long lasting viability.

Democracies usually destroy themselves because the majority wants more than it cares to give.

The value of a Representative Republic was representatives could take actions that would benefit the majority without inflicting extinction on the minority.

If we are talking about forms of govenment and populations then we have to take into consideration that a certain level of education and ethical behaviour have to be possessed by the majority or a government by the people and for the people will fail miserably.

I would strongly advise taking that into consideration before you make an argument that would destroy the seed of education and ethical behaviour that currently exists on the east bank of the mediterranean sea.

If one looks at the current educational state of the USA and the current group of representatives you can begin to grasp what happens when ethical and educational standards are allowed to fall below certain minimum levels.

I think the USA is currently held together by the glue of beurocracy rather than the wonder of democracy.

dzimmerm

 

[Byron Quick]

My take on the 1948 war is accepted by every single country except for the US and Israel.

That must be why the Arab states' actions were condemned as illegal aggression by the US, the USSR, and the UN Secretary-General and supported as legitimate only by the People's Republic of China.

The USSR and the UN Secretary General condemned the Arab states' action as being illegal aggression because they agree with your position. Right.

At the time of the 1948 war, I can find exactly one nation that accepted the Arab states' action as legitimate. The People's Republic of China. And, of course, the nations that were bent on genocide, the Arab nations.