reading aljazeera: stuff for thought


PDA






silverlance
October 14, 2005, 04:48 AM
Reading a yahoo article on the russian vs chechen battle in Nirkuk (sp?) today, I came across a website called Kavkaz-Center website (you can yahoo it yourself to find the site). aljazeera posts there, and since I pride myself on being a critical thinker, being objective, and taking the high road, I decide to read what they had to say.

*warning: i am a loyal american, willing to go if i'm drafted, etc...i do not condone any terrorist activity of any sort, and personally haven't yet come to any sort of stance on the war in iraq. other than i want my friends to come home from the sandbox.

what do you guys think about the writer's argument? does he have a valid point in arguing that the US has sponsored directly or indirectly oppresive foreign policy? is he correct in that the US is taking on the mantle of tyranny? has america, in essence, lost its way?

,,,
Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful.

While Arabs share in the responsibility for the conflict in the Middle East, much of the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the state terrorists who have operated from their command centers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Pentagon. The so-called Arab "terrorism" is a reaction to years of victimization at the hands of the U.S. government and its proxies in the Middle East.

The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones. 5% of the world's population does not need to account for 50% of the world's military expenditures.

America simply needs to reduce its military to a force large enough to defend itself and scrap its imperial ambitions.

A true victory for President Bush’s “war on terror” would involve eradicating the U.S. terrorist state and criminally prosecuting those who have perpetrated the associated war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others in that foul administration belong in Guantanamo Bay with those they have deemed to be “terrorists”. The most dangerous terrorists on Earth move about freely, wield great power, enjoy immense wealth, and reside openly in Washington. They represent a fraction of the U.S. population yet they harbor almost all of the power and wealth in the world's only remaining superpower nation.

Arrests and prosecutions through U.S. and international courts, tax revolts, protests, nation-wide strikes/walkouts by union and non-union employees alike, massive consumer boycotts, increased education of the American public, increased unity amongst the proponents of social justice, and the emergence of a powerful spiritual leader whose true goal is to achieve social justice are needed to excise the cancer in Washington which plagues the world.

Bush II edges the U.S. closer and closer to tyranny as he imposes the elites' Social Darwinism upon the poor and working class by butchering social welfare program budgets, weakening unions, lowering taxes on the wealthy, working to dismantle Social Security, protecting and empowering corporations, and deregulating businesses.

During the New Orleans debacle, the U.S. government's response revealed glimpses of a U.S. military machine prepared to employ state terrorism domestically. Katrina was a wake-up call for the people. Also Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, his former personal attorney who has no experience as a judge, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy continues an unprecedented pattern of incredibly corrupt cronyism. Miers' virtually assured approval by a Republican-controlled Senate will complete the trifecta necessary for Bush II to control each branch of the U.S. government.

Justice and peace can still prevail, but the elitists hold a significant advantage in the struggle, and are strengthening their hand.

Aljazeera

2005-10-06 15:17:51
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/06/4128.shtml

If you enjoyed reading about "reading aljazeera: stuff for thought" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunsmith
October 14, 2005, 05:07 AM
fyi
I lost a friend over in Iraq, Sam Barbetta of the US Airborne.

there are folks suffering from "years of victimization" in the middle east
..those folks are women, Jews and gays. to be a gay a woman or a Jew in ANY Islamic country means you can be killed at allmost any time or imprisoned.

this writer just has an axe to grind against America.
I would like him to explain Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in the Phillipines and Kashmir? they ( Islamic fundamentalist ) kill lots of folks over there too.

I have a friend from Yemen, a real cool young guy and a gun nut like me, but
he insist there is proof of our gov't involvement in 911 ...you know what that proof is? a folded up 20 dollar bill!

I wish todays lefties would come out and say that they support the oppression of women,gays & Jews by Islamic fundamentalist at least they would then be honest.

shootinstudent
October 14, 2005, 06:21 AM
The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones

The problem with this argument is that the people who are poised to take over the middle east by violence, should the US withdraw, have absolutely zero respect for human rights or humanitarian projects. Looks like the standard "blame everyone else and ignore what's happening at the hands of islamist terrorists" line that comes from the small gang of supporters of that particular movement.

I do agree that supporting dictatorships and oppressive regimes (or, at least, ignoring them) has contributed to the problem, though. Look what US and British support for Ibn Sa'ud's raiders has earned us...an officially radical state in Saudi Arabia. Abandoning any interest in Afghanistan after the Russians left wasn't too smart.

And of course the US isn't the only culprit. Look at what the Russians have earned themselves through decades of brutal oppression and undemocratic rule....Chechnya and the rest of Central Asia daily revolting against all things Russian.

gunsmith,

Just like in the christian world, the causes for violence are different whereever you go. South America has problems for different reasons than Romania, for example. I sure hope we can bring terrorists of all creeds and colors to justice eventually.

And it sure looks to me like gun owners are much more committed to that goal than anti-gunners.

Joejojoba111
October 14, 2005, 07:38 AM
I think that foreign policy was clear and honest before WW1. After WWII it became necessary to act as one does during a cold-war. However it was easier to simply lie to the public and pretend nothing had changed. It was a time of dirty deeds, and they were done done right.

However, we never really got around to recognizing the great gap between actions and words... It's a problem. There are 2 solutions, re-introduce the public to realpolitik, or alter foreign policy and the natur of involvment in the world in a dramatic fashion. The public is completely capable of accepting #!, they wouldn't really care to be honest. And they'd care even less about #2. ...Buuutt during all the deceit and trechary, what with overthrowing governments and setting up puppet regimes, and general economic sneakiness, it came to be that powerful people inside the USA started to think 'what if we tried to do what we do out there, in here?'.

And that's the point we're at today.

earonthief
October 14, 2005, 09:13 AM
It's a typical "The world was a better place until the U.S. came along and screwed it up" leftist propaganda whine. The writer has probably never been outside CONUS and only "knows" what their contollers tell him.

Jeff Timm
October 14, 2005, 10:14 AM
Let's Face Facts Folks,

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

The Bush Admin in a fit of optimism is trying to build "safe" moslem countries in Iraq and Afganistan. It is very expensive, including the price in US lives.

The alternative is infinitly MORE expensive, but it may be necessary. We have delt with tribal based cultures with violent societies before. We wiped many out and forced them onto reservations. That was also an expensive process, but effective.

Geoff
Who notes the difficulty in choosing from Bad or Worse.

auschip
October 14, 2005, 10:29 AM
Let's Face Facts Folks,

Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

The Bush Admin in a fit of optimism is trying to build "safe" moslem countries in Iraq and Afganistan. It is very expensive, including the price in US lives.

The alternative is infinitly MORE expensive, but it may be necessary. We have delt with tribal based cultures with violent societies before. We wiped many out and forced them onto reservations. That was also an expensive process, but effective.

Geoff
Who notes the difficulty in choosing from Bad or Worse.

Did I miss a sarcasm tag? What orifice was this pulled from?

GT
October 14, 2005, 11:22 AM
Jeff T +1


G

geekWithA.45
October 14, 2005, 11:35 AM
what do you guys think about the writer's argument? does he have a valid point in arguing that the US has sponsored directly or indirectly oppresive foreign policy? is he correct in that the US is taking on the mantle of tyranny? has america, in essence, lost its way?

These are all excellent questions, which I will address directly.

-The writer's argument is opportunistic crap, for all the reasons already cited. It preys on our own FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt), leverages pre-existing memes emanating from our own domestic leftists, and has the extra added bonus of allowing the middle east to entirely avoid confronting their own contribution to the mess. It is a shell game, designed to distract the distractable.

You'll also note that the islamofascists were up to their deadly games long before W took office and decided to do something about it, and the implication that all we have to do to obtain peace in the mideast and safety from Al-Q is get rid of Bush is the same old terrorist/mugger's confidence game: just do what I want you to do, and you won't get hurt.

It's pure BS.

-Has the US sponsored, directly, or indirectly, oppressive foriegn policy?

Interesting question. In this case, "oppressive foriegn policy" is an Al-Q codeword for "supporting Israel". Israel's hands are not lilly white clean, and that's a whole discussion in it's own right, which I compress to, "In the balance, supporting the state of Israel's continued existence is a GOOD thing."

-Is the US taking on the mantle of tyranny, has it lost its way?

This is a distinct and disturbing possibility, that is entirely a separate question from operation "Drain the mid east swamp", and whose ultimate conclusion is entirely up to us, a domestic matter.

shootinstudent
October 14, 2005, 11:41 AM
Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children. Cross reference Koran translation.

:rolleyes:

Not only have we not read the Book, we're blaming a billion people for the actions of a few.

I fail to see any way in which hating Muslims will help end terrorism. The only thing I can imagine it will do in the long run is create a country that proves the author above correct.

geekWithA.45
October 14, 2005, 11:46 AM
I suggest sticking to the topic. I'm betting 2 or 3 more posts of the "all muslims are evil" variety will be enough to get it closed.

R.H. Lee
October 14, 2005, 11:50 AM
I'm philosophically opposed to any U.S. government interference with any other sovereign nation, except for direct humanitarian aid. That said™, we reserve the right to make all out war when and if our national security interests are at stake. Short of that, no meddling.

Derek Zeanah
October 14, 2005, 11:56 AM
Interesting question. In this case, "oppressive foriegn policy" is an Al-Q codeword for "supporting Israel". Israel's hands are not lilly white clean, and that's a whole discussion in it's own right, which I compress to, "In the balance, supporting the state of Israel's continued existence is a GOOD thing."I think instead of looking for "codewords," we could better address the argument by asking outselves a simple question:Has the US sponsored brutal dictators in the region, and are any tynants more powerful because of our aid?I think the answer is clearly yes, even when you take Israel out of the equation. A lot of middle-eastern Muslims seem unhappy about how Saidi Arabia is run, but they can't overthrow the government because of our aid and support. Look at past support for Hussein and the Shah and that guy in Egypt a while back as well -- it could reasonably be argued by one who lives in the region that the United States cares more about oil and influence in the middle east than it does about middle-eastern freedom or people -- that we've happily supported brutal dictators and kept them in power longer than they would have been able to naturally maintain it, because we put our own well-being before that of those who were being killed, driven into bankruptcy, raped, forcibly amputated, and the rest.

Before the local "And Why Shouldn't We!" contingent pops up, let me just say that it seems this argument can be backed with enough facts to make it believable, and it might really resonate among people who need somewhere to place their blame and anger.

I think we don't really want the middle east to use us as a scape goat, but it looks like we're playing into that role. :(

geekWithA.45
October 14, 2005, 01:23 PM
I think you have a point, and the significant departure of this administration from the policies of the past has been the implicit recognition that we can't sustain that sort of thing.

Hence, the general plan of draining the swamp, and supporting the erection of a stable, moderate arab/muslim democracy smack dab in the middle east.

If we look at the historical alternatives to those unsavory regimes we support(ed), there weren't exactly a whole lot of moderate freedom seeking folks lining up to do the overthrowing. (I'm willing to listen to illustrations of such that had the strength and means) Those who had the strength and inclination to be doing any overthrowing were problematic folks: strongman thugs like Sadaam, extremist, Al-Q ish mullahs like Khomeni, or soviet influenced puppets.

We absolutely could NOT afford the iron curtain being wrapped around our energy supply.

That would have been the end of the cold war, with us on the losing side.

shootinstudent
October 14, 2005, 01:34 PM
I think the answer is clearly yes, even when you take Israel out of the equation. A lot of middle-eastern Muslims seem unhappy about how Saidi Arabia is run, but they can't overthrow the government because of our aid and support.

I think this is a huge factor. Some select members of the house of saud have been paying for extremism and terrorism for a long time, yet we keep handing them billions in oil dollars because we a)didn't care in the past, when we might have moved against radicalism without endangering the whole world's oil supply and b)because we don't really care now, which I think is due to a fundamental failure to take account of different factions and trends in the Muslim world.

With such a long track record of support for extremists, even a policy shift now is dangerous, because the popular folks in a lot of countries are going to be the ones who harness the anger against a long US history of supporting their oppressors.

Israel doesn't help, either. Seizing Jerusalem in 1967 and turning it into the capital was pretty clearly land theft, and I'm amazed that more people don't recognize its illegitimacy. That said, I think it is the only democratic state in the middle east that provides a modicum of religious and civil liberties. I agree with Sheikh Palazzi in this interview, that it's almost more unjust to abandon the Palestinian people to the thugs who've managed to gain significant positions of authority in Palestine: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19444

The Grand Inquisitor
October 14, 2005, 01:42 PM
Although I don;t have the time at the moment to fully write what I think, I do not think there is any real doubt that the United States has supported and engaged in terroristic activities over the last 50 years.

Looking outside the Muslim world, the United States devastated Nicaragua in the secret war there, and the United States role in supporting dictatorial regimes across the globe is well documented, with the rise of Augusto Pinochet in Chile as the most obvious example.

We are currently fighting a war in Afganistan, against many of the same men whom we supported and supplied during their war with the Soviets. Actually, not only did the United States support the Afgan mujahedin during the Afghan/Soviet war, but we sent money to the Taliban controlled Afghan regime for them to cut opium production (which they did - the Taliban may have been oppressive, but they all but destroyed the now burgeoning opium trade).

Kurush
October 14, 2005, 02:42 PM
It is definitely true that US foreign policy has contributed to the problem, it's very unlikely for example that Khomeini would have come to power if the CIA and MI6 hadn't overthrown Iran's democratic government (see Mossadeq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq) on wikipedia) and replaced it with a dictatorship. The radicals in Iran came to power, not because people wanted an islamic state, but because the poor were nearly starving and the islamists were pretty much the only opposition that hadn't completely been wiped out by death squads. The Sunni islamic radicals took a lot of inspiration from the Islamic Revolution and might not have become a major faction without it.

BUT, that said, the Islamic radicals are not going to stop just because we apologise (which WJC did). Al-Qaeda is now claiming legitimacy from events as far back as the Crusades and the defeat of the Cordoba Caliphate in Spain. Osama has actually called for the invasion of Spain or "Al-Andalus" as it was called 500 years ago. The editorial above looks like just an effort to drive a wedge between groups in the US.

shermacman
October 14, 2005, 02:58 PM
The Middle East has been the center of violence based on religious, ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, geographic hatred for millennia.

And it is the fault of the United States? You have got to think this one through. It doesn't matter who runs Saudi Arabia, there will be Muslims driven to violence over it. That is the history of the Middle East. The support of the United States of one dictator as opposed to another has absolutely nothing to do with it.

shootinstudent
October 14, 2005, 03:09 PM
The Middle East has been the center of violence based on religious, ethnic, cultural, political, linguistic, geographic hatred for millennia.

That is quite simply false. No other way to sum it up. During the middle ages, Europe's people lived lives that were likely much lower in quality than the average haitian citizen endures today. At the same time, the Muslim states were centers of religious freedom, scientific exploration, and economic development.

IMO, first step to answering terrorism is recognizing that it doesn't have to exist. If you believe the hype about the "history" of the Muslim world predetermining it to violence, then you might as well give up now because you're imagining an enemy that's impossible to defeat.

I, on the other hand, think there's plenty we can do to marginalize and expose people like aljazeera for what they are.

geekWithA.45
October 14, 2005, 03:13 PM
it's very unlikely for example that Khomeini would have come to power if the CIA and MI6 hadn't overthrown Iran's democratic government (see Mossadeq on wikipedia) and replaced it with a dictatorship.

Ummm...if you read the wikipedia article, I think you'll see that "overthrow a democracy and replace it with a dictator" is a the sort of simplification that abstracts a lot of salient point from the discussion, like, oh, say, the fact that Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islam, rigged elections, failed to leave office when dismissed, and was beaten down in his own coup attempt, in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not say our own history is lilly white clean and virtuous, but what I am saying is that reducing our views to simple jingoes such as "replaced a democracy with a dictatorship" runs a serious risk of losing perspective on the who/what/where/when and why.

Headless Thompson Gunner
October 14, 2005, 03:25 PM
"You westerners and Israelis aren't justified in doing anything we don't like, no matter how reprehensible we are towards you. Oh, and Bush is BAAAAD." --Aljazeera

Sounds a lot like the lib wackos here in our own country.

gunsmith
October 14, 2005, 04:14 PM
that when there is a peoples uprising (like Iran in the late 70's)
you get an Ismamic fundamentalist instead of moderates like what
Turkey has.
I agree the house of Saud has to go but not if we get Taliban instead.

davec
October 14, 2005, 04:22 PM
Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful.

Somebody has been reading the essays of a two time Medal of Honor recipient, and United States Marine Corps Major General.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915865/qid=1129317221/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-1257290-2072741?v=glance&s=books

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

here's the full text, it's short: http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Carl N. Brown
October 14, 2005, 04:49 PM
Some random shots:

Most Americans view this state of war starting 9-11-2001; many
in the Arab world see this starting about the time of the Crusades.

Aljazeera cannot see the obvious ethnic cleansing of the Jews by
the Arabs, or does not see it as wrong.

Palestineans fail to see they have more in common with the Jews:
the other Arabs dislike them both.

Everyone involved seems to have tunnel vision or are wearing blinders.

silverlance
October 14, 2005, 05:25 PM
my god, this guy is amazing. and TWO TIME medal of honor recipient, no less, neither posthumous..whoa. either he was a superman, or those were really corrupt times.

this is a 1935 qoute from him, from wikipedia:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."
...

it seems to me (and by the way thank you all for not turning this into "moslems are devil hating children eaters" thread) that this is this is a resonanting conviction here:

1. the united states HAS contributed greatly to unsavory characters and regimes. komedi, pol pot, pinchet, etc.

2. these contributions were often necessary given the alternative: iron curtain over resources, sphere of influence, etc.

3. most of the actions were taken during the era of the cold war.

4. the jihadi movement worldwide is responsible for many undeniably heinous acts.

my personal view:

the writer of this article mixed fact (past american involvement in supporting said unsavory characters) and what most generally understand as true (perpetual war benefits only the rich) with a call to americans to essentially revolt against an "Bush II"'s war criminal cabinet.

the final question is this:

Can the United States escape the fermenting results of its bloody actions of the Cold War? Can the United States move on to actually one day co-exist with the Islamic states in peace? And above all, how can the United States one day regain the respect of those on whom we've had to, or chosen to, trod on in order to assert ourselves today as the sole remaining world superpower?

Or will China inherit the Earth?


While I am ethnically Chinese, I am an American and I fear that a future led by China will be a giant leap backwards from Liberty.

Kurush
October 15, 2005, 04:32 AM
Ummm...if you read the wikipedia article, I think you'll see that "overthrow a democracy and replace it with a dictator" is a the sort of simplification that abstracts a lot of salient point from the discussion, like, oh, say, the fact that Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islamSorry but you really don't know what you're talking about here. Mossadeq was not "propped up by" anyone, he was elected twice by a fair vote in Majlis. The groups you refer to were especially vocal in supporting the oil nationalization program because they were anti-colonial, and were angry that Britain was in effect looting Iran's oil fields.
rigged electionsYou are also oversimplifying the vote issue, the vote to dissolve parliament (a referendum not an election) was rigged by both sides, and one side was more successful than the other.

failed to leave office when dismissed, and was beaten down in his own coup attempt, in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.Again you just don't know anything about this event, so stop lecturing on it. The Shah was acting as a puppet of Britain in preventing the nationalization of Iran's oil fields simply because Britain didn't want to lose its free oil. There is simply no case to be made that the Shah was a legitimate head of state acting under the rule of law. After the coup, Reza Shah became a dictator and gave the oil fields to an oil consortium with ownership split between US and British oil companies. He later created his own secret police/death squad, the SAVAK, with the help of the CIA, which murdered and tortured thousands of political prisoners.

We and Britain screwed Iran over royally, and the Islamic Revolution was the unfortunate side effect. After the revolution, we gave poison gas to Saddam Hussein which he used on Iranian civilians. I've driven around the abandoned US embassy a few times; the outer walls are still covered in anti-US murals. There are other murals around Tehran, but there seem to be fewer every time I go. Most Iranians are over it, especially considering that most Iranians were born after the revolution, but they (and we) are still suffering from a bad revolution that we made necessary.

geekWithA.45
October 15, 2005, 10:54 PM
Hey, Kurush:

I'm just actually bothering to read and abstract from the article that YOU originally linked to, found here:

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

Every point I've made that you've taken exception to is found in that article.

Me: Moussaddiq was propped up by the twin pillars of communists and radical islam:

>>Wikipedia: ". Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies" (Tudeh = Iran's communist party)

Me: rigged elections

>>Wikipedia: "He set up a national referendum to dissolve parliament. The vote was clearly rigged, with Mossadegh claiming a 99.9 percent victory for the "yes" side"

Me: failed to leave office when dismissed,

>>Wikipedia: "To remain in power Mossadegh knew he would have to continue consolidating his power. Since Iran's monarch was the only person who constitutionally outranked him, he perceived Iran's 33-year-old king to be his biggest threat. In August of 1953 Mossadegh attempted to convince the Shah to leave the country. The Shah refused, and formally dismissed the Prime Minister, in accordance with the foreign intelligence plan. Mossdegh refused to quit, however, and when it became apparent that he was going to fight, the Shah, as a precautionary measure foreseen by the British/American plan, flew to Baghdad and on from there to Rome, Italy."

Me: was beaten down in his own coup attempt,

>>Wikipedia: "The military intervened as the pro-Shah tank regiments stormed the capital and bombarded the prime minister's official residence. Mossadegh surrendered, and was arrested on August 19, 1953."


Me: in defiance of the existing legal system of the time.

>>Wikipedia: "The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, "







-----------------------------------

You'll note that I have not at any point claimed that the US is pure and virtuous in any of these matters, nor have I claimed that the Shah was a nice guy. In fact, he was pretty nasty. But no matter how nasty he was, that doesn't automatically make Mossadeq a saint.

What I have pointed out is that there is more to the story than spin you applied to it in using the jingo "replaced a democracy with a dictatorship"

A realistic statement about the whole affair is that we played two factions of dubious merit against each other to our advantage, which is in and of itself a dubious act.


Oh, and for the record, nationalizing an industry is THEFT from the people who built and paid for that industry. The solution to redressing whatever legitimate grievances that might exist in contractual inequity is to renegotiation, not steal the factory, especially considering that the original 60 year oil concession upon which that company was based was due to expire in 10 years.

Oh, wait, there WAS a renegotiation:

Wikipedia: "The Iranian government wanted to take a significant share in the company, and would not negotiate when only offered a larger share of revenues."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Company




You: "Again you just don't know anything about this event, so stop lecturing on it."

Me: :neener: pronounced "phhhllbbt"

Edited to add:

Which I further clarify to mean that you may well have a lot more information on the event than I, but telling me in effect to sit down and shut up because I actually read the article you pointed to and took note of aspects of it you don't like is out of line.

shermacman
October 15, 2005, 11:53 PM
What geekWithA.45 said. Period.

The Shah was acting as a puppet of Britain in preventing the nationalization of Iran's oil fields simply because Britain didn't want to lose its free oil.

Any time some slob with a throne does a business deal with the West, we suddenly become the supporters of despotic regimes in the eyes of the nihilistic Left. IBM and Hitler, the Shah and BP; automatically the free world is a criminal. Life is complicated, we try, we sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. But we are not the force of evil that is National Socialism. Whether that National Socialism is Italian Fascism, the German Nazi party, Islamo-Fascism or communist China: we are right, they are wrong.

Period.

Kurush
October 16, 2005, 12:47 AM
(geekwitha45 explaining how he drew his conclusions)I should have read the article more carefully before I linked to it, but it isn't so much misleading as incomplete. Mossadeq's sainthood is not at issue, there are no saints in politics (especially Iranian politics :rolleyes: ) He was legitimately elected as prime minister, twice, by large margins, and the Shah took over the government by force (force provided by the US and Britain no less) against the will of the electorate.

Oh, and for the record, nationalizing an industry is THEFT from the people who built and paid for that industry. The solution to redressing whatever legitimate grievances that might exist in contractual inequity is to renegotiation, not steal the factory, especially considering that the original 60 year oil concession upon which that company was based was due to expire in 10 years.So you think Iran should just let Britain drain their oil fields out because they bought the land before anyone knew it was an oil field? Come on. If the US won't even allow a chinese company to buy Unocal why on earth should Iran allow a British company to own ALL of its oil fields?

Oh, wait, there WAS a renegotiation:

Wikipedia: "The Iranian government wanted to take a significant share in the company, and would not negotiate when only offered a larger share of revenues."AIOC wasn't paying even the royalties they already agreed to, who cares if they have to pay a higher percent if they aren't paying it in the first place. In any case Iran has no duty to allow AIOC/BP to own its oil fields.

Which I further clarify to mean that you may well have a lot more information on the event than I, but telling me in effect to sit down and shut up because I actually read the article you pointed to and took note of aspects of it you don't like is out of line.Well, rereading my reply I was being a bit grumpy, it seems it was just an honest misunderstanding so I apologise.

ETA:Read the post immediately above this one and you'll see why I overreacted, every time I get in a discussion about this the Sean Hannity worshipping mouthbreathers come out of the woodwork.

Delmar
October 16, 2005, 01:55 AM
"Perpetual war benefits the small minority who sit atop the food chain. The poor and working class suffer and die while society's elite, wealthy leaders grow richer and more powerful."
And just who would that be-people like GW who is going to be out of office in a couple of years, or the King/Queen/Ruler of (insert middle east dictator of choice here)?

"While Arabs share in the responsibility for the conflict in the Middle East, much of the responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the state terrorists who have operated from their command centers at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Pentagon. The so-called Arab "terrorism" is a reaction to years of victimization at the hands of the U.S. government and its proxies in the Middle East."
Just how many middle eastern countries have participated in the Bosnia operation, where US and NATO forces went in to protect the lives of Muslims from ethnic cleansing? Which middle eastern countries have hosted talks, peace treaties and whatnot to help in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

"The way to bring this phenomenon to an end is for the American people to engage in a non-violent revolution to replace the abhorrence in Washington which masquerades as a democracy, to withdraw from Iraq, to close U.S. military bases in the Middle East and around the world, to stop supporting Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, and to redirect this nation toward humanitarian objectives rather than military ones. 5% of the world's population does not need to account for 50% of the world's military expenditures.
Excuse me-what do you know about democracy, other than trying to crush the existing one in Israel, and feeding/clothing/housing and financing the murdering terrorists being fed in from the countries surrounding Iraq? If you want to gain peace in your section of the country, why don't you quit blowing up children receiving candy from American GI's and lets set down and talk some sense for a change?

"America simply needs to reduce its military to a force large enough to defend itself and scrap its imperial ambitions."
Your terrorists finally got our government to get off its dime and start kicking your teeth in because y'all don't have the first clue when it comes to acting humanely, and you want to direct OUR military? We don't want your land, and until your kind quit blowing up buildings, trains, embassies and nightclubs in other countries, get used to seeing the stars and stripes on your chest. If you're serious about changing a government's behavior, start with your own!

"A true victory for President Bush’s “war on terror” would involve eradicating the U.S. terrorist state and criminally prosecuting those who have perpetrated the associated war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many others in that foul administration belong in Guantanamo Bay with those they have deemed to be “terrorists”. The most dangerous terrorists on Earth move about freely, wield great power, enjoy immense wealth, and reside openly in Washington. They represent a fraction of the U.S. population yet they harbor almost all of the power and wealth in the world's only remaining superpower nation. "
A true victory for the war on terror would involve eradicating the terrorists who murder women because their veil slipped in public, who push unarmed old men in a wheelchair off ships, who murdered 3000 innocent people trying to make a living in a couple of buildings, etc., etc., etc. In other words, a victory would be people respecting the lives of others, regardless of their personal/religious beliefs

"Arrests and prosecutions through U.S. and international courts, tax revolts, protests, nation-wide strikes/walkouts by union and non-union employees alike, massive consumer boycotts, increased education of the American public, increased unity amongst the proponents of social justice, and the emergence of a powerful spiritual leader whose true goal is to achieve social justice are needed to excise the cancer in Washington which plagues the world."
Who did you have in mind? Maybe Osama for President? This ain't Viet Nam, and you ain't Ho Chi Minh. You have absolutely NO clue what social justice is, and we are not going to tear our country apart for your amusement. We are a big family, and we will argue amongst ourselves, but we will never bow to the likes of you.

"Bush II edges the U.S. closer and closer to tyranny as he imposes the elites' Social Darwinism upon the poor and working class by butchering social welfare program budgets, weakening unions, lowering taxes on the wealthy, working to dismantle Social Security, protecting and empowering corporations, and deregulating businesses."
Really? Why don't you tell us all about your social security program, your workers unions and all of your major deregulated businesses? I'd love to hear it. That book would be about as thick as the one I am currently writing-"All I Know About Women.

"During the New Orleans debacle, the U.S. government's response revealed glimpses of a U.S. military machine prepared to employ state terrorism domestically. Katrina was a wake-up call for the people. Also Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, his former personal attorney who has no experience as a judge, to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy continues an unprecedented pattern of incredibly corrupt cronyism. Miers' virtually assured approval by a Republican-controlled Senate will complete the trifecta necessary for Bush II to control each branch of the U.S. government.
Gee, where ARE you guys when it comes to natural disasters in the world? Your military must have stealth uniforms, because we never see you. Of course, most Americans see your rulers as major disasters in the first place. And by the way-our women can drive, hold high paying jobs in business and industry, and hold high office in our land. Please supply the names of all the women and christians who have held a position in your supreme court? Awwww, don't have one? How many female officers in your military? None? Okay-how many Jewish males in high office? Any other minorities?

"Justice and peace can still prevail, but the elitists hold a significant advantage in the struggle, and are strengthening their hand."
Here's a clue-there won't be any peace until there is justice, and you don't have any right now.

dzimmerm
October 16, 2005, 02:29 AM
It occured to me that if the problem is "our oil" in the middle east, or to put it more clearly, "our need of oil" in the middle east, then one solution would be to develope energy sources that do not need oil.

Who would benefit from developing nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, ect. sources?

Not those who are currently in power.

It has been said that the USA can not be toppled by an external force due to our isolation by two large oceans.

It was added that the USA's destruction can only be done from internal forces.

That statement is a little bit out of date with the invention of ICBMs but let us not forget 911 was done with our own internal resources.

I think the USA public has been played for a fool by those who stand to benefit more from the Oil situation as it now exists.

I want flying cars and force fields. I want to be able to eat lunch on the moon and tour the depths of our oceans.

Research, technology, cooperation amongst all humans. That will get us to the stars and the depths of our own oceans.

War and strife only benefits small numbers of people in select positions.

I am a gun toting anarchist with libertarian tendancies, but my eyes are open and I can see when I am being played.

I don't like it, not when Islamic sympathizers do it, nor when Patriotic chest thumpers do it.

I appreciate THR for providing a forum where even whacko ideas like mine can be looked at and dismissed, :) .

dzimmerm

Capteddie
October 16, 2005, 02:43 AM
+1 dzimmerm :D

Capteddie

silverlance
October 16, 2005, 03:25 AM
dizerrim

i agree totally. we are being played by wealthy power brokers. probably GW is being played, too. and come to think of it, very likely our "friends" on the other side of the trench are, too.

i was reading the other day reports on new technology alt power sources - did you guys know that solar is now a viable source, as is wind? but nobody wants to hear that.. instead everyone is fed the old statistics from the 60s and 70s about how they will never work.

matis
October 16, 2005, 03:42 AM
Israel doesn't help, either. Seizing Jerusalem in 1967 and turning it into the capital was pretty clearly land theft, and I'm amazed that more people don't recognize its illegitimacy.
__________________________________________________________________

Shootinstudent, in 1967 the Israelis were surrounded by the Egyptians, the Syrians and other Arab Armies. Once the fighting started they just about begged the Jordanians not to enter the fray. The Jordanians did, the Jews whipped them and took the part of Jerusalem the Arabs had controlled.

When the Arabs controlled this part of Jerusalem, the Jews were absolutely barred from their holiest site, the Temple Mount. Once the Jews took Jerusalem, they GAVE the keys to the WAKF to show good will (VERY stupid and short-sighted move!). The Wakf responded by barring the Jews from praying at their own holiest site. They now excavate the site illegally and destroy ancient Jewish artifacts from the Temple. And they falsify history and say the Jews never had a Temple there.

Jerusalem is mentioned many, many times in the Torah. It is mentioned only once, and that in passing, in the Koran.


The Arabs forced the 1967 war on Israel in an attempt to annihilate her and drive the jews into the sea. In spite of huge Arab advantages in men and materiel, the Israelis beat the sh/t out of them. Whatever land Israel took she won in a war forced upon her.

As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

"Land Theft?" Your bias shows clearly and your quote above is way out of line.



matis

Hacker15E
October 16, 2005, 08:02 AM
As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

Fantastic point...but, just because we're hypocrites doesn't make it correct.

geekWithA.45
October 16, 2005, 10:19 AM
Kurush said:
Well, rereading my reply I was being a bit grumpy, it seems it was just an honest misunderstanding so I apologise.

Fair enough.

I also apologize for my counter grumpiness.

{clinks glass with Kurush}

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 05:35 PM
As soon as we give the Western US back to Mexico and the rest to the Indians, ONLY then should Israel relinquish land she bought with the blood of her defending soldiers and innocent citizens.

"Land Theft?" Your bias shows clearly and your quote above is way out of line

If the US and Mexico is your best comparison, I don't see any imaginable way the Israeli seizure of Jerusalem couldn't be land theft. Good comparison, the US seizure of the wetsern states was illegal by even the laws of the time.

You're right that Israel was attacked from four sides. Yes, Israel has a right to defend itself. But there's a big difference between repelling attacking armies (which were invading a country founded in large part through anti-british terrorism in the 40's)...and repelling an army, then seizing its religious holy sites (the Al Aqsa mosque), and moving settlers in to repopulate and outvote the natives in the places you just took. In addition, renaming a piece of territory that has not ever been in the possession of your government as your capital smacks of an illegal land grab.

The fact that the arab states were behaving badly doesn't change the fact that Israel illegally seized Jerusalem. Neither do some quotes from the Torah. And the continued illegal occupation of the land seized in 1967 is a huge factor in fueling worldwide anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments...that was my point in posting.

GoRon
October 16, 2005, 07:14 PM
And when has there ever been a country called Palestine?

Land grab my a@@. The amount of leftist drivel including anti Israel pro Palestinian sentiment on THR amazes me.

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 07:59 PM
Land grab my a@@. The mount of leftist drivel including anti Isreal pro Palestinian sentiment on THR amazes me.

Let me clear: I'm not anti-Israel. I think it's the most democratic country in the region and that it offers people better lives than any of the arab states.


That said, yes, it was a land grab. Palestinian nationalism is new, but there were most certainly Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, and Lebanese states back then, and all lost land to Israel.

Saying "there was no palestine" doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem was illegally seized from another country in 1967 and converted into the Israeli capital. Sorry, but in the 20th century and especially now in the 21st, I don't think "but it was in my religious book!" is justification for annexing territory.

And to get it back on the thread...the US's support for the land grab has done much to fuel anti-US sentiment. Add that on top of US support for a series of dictators, and it's not so hard to understand how the Arab world has developed along such an anti-American path. Pretending that the formation of the Israeli state was all kosher, or that it doesn't matter anymore, is not going to help solve any of our problems.

matis
October 16, 2005, 08:01 PM
Quote:
The fact that the arab states were behaving badly doesn't change the fact that Israel illegally seized Jerusalem. Neither do some quotes from the Torah. And the continued illegal occupation of the land seized in 1967 is a huge factor in fueling worldwide anti-Israel and anti-American sentiments...that was my point in posting. (Shootinstudent)
__________________________________________________________________

Shootinstudent, arguing with you seems a waste of time. I just made the point that the Israelis did NOT illegally seize Jerusalem, which point you skim over with general remarks about the "...Arab states acting badly." -- and then you go right back to your original position.

It is NOT illegal to defend one's country when it is attacked and land thus acquired is NOT land-theft.




The huge factor in worldwide anti-Israel sentiment is the usual 2000 year old and world-wide anti-Semitism. The reasons for the anti-Semitism are not all the same as that for anti-American sentiment but they share certain very important similarities:


The main reason for anti-American sentiment is that America is the sole remaining world power. And America is the most successful nation ever, whatever parameter you care to examine. Whatever the US does will be twisted and everything bad will always be our fault. Winners are always hated and envied by their lessors. Certainly we are not perfect in our foreign (or domestic) policy. And we certainly pursue some unwise policies. But if we keep to ourselves, then we are accused of not caring and if we intervene we are ugly Americans. Every country must act in its own best interest and we are no different.


The Jews are hated for many reasons but where these are similar to the hatred for the US they are that Jews are also very successful!


Remove the boot from our necks and, because we are infused with Torah values, we quickly rise to become formidable competitors. This is true even for secular Jews. Their Jewish consciousness includes the Torah values of strong love of family, reverence for learning and hard work. Secular Jews may no longer care for their religion, but the values are a part of them, anyway.

If this were not true, then how to explain the Jewish rise to the top of every profession and field they enter? Do you think the Swedes are under the control of some Jewish cabal when they award so many Nobel prizes to us? Truth is there is more than mild anti-Semitism among the Swedes.

When Jews assimilate to the point where they are indistinguishable from others, they take on the parameters of the mainstream.

How many ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews do you find among the ranks of alcoholics, drug addicts, violent criminals? What is their divorce rate? First generation assimilated Jews begin to slip toward the majority. Very assimilated Jews become almost indistinguishable along these lines.

Yet, even among very assimilated Jews, their success rate in their chosen field is higher. Don't even ask me how the Jewish IQ compares, because you'll call me racist when I give you the answer!

Not that I care. I see nothing wrong in being proud of who and what I am; political correctness be damned! And unlike certain other groups, we don't have to invent any of our glories, past or present.

Of course many assimilated Jews will argue vehemently against what I write here. I spent most of my life doing that, myself. So then how would one explain the difference in the social parameters of such Jews? Hatred of religion certainly can blind one to the facts.

{So don’t start with me, boychiklach -- I’ve been on both sides now (grin).}


It is commonly understood that one important reason the West is predominant is because her people embody the Protestant work ethic. I believe that this is true. But where did the Protestants get their ethic, if not from the Jews and their religion? Have you learned your American history? They don't call this culture Judeo-Christian for nothing, do they?


So both the USA and the Jews are hated out of envy. The deadliest of the 7 deadly sins.



Yet the Arabs have far outsmarted we smart Jews. They purposely kept and still keep millions of their brethren in abject misery in refugee camps so as to make them into the spearhead of their attack against Israel. And the other Arabs certainly don’t want the Palestinians. How many Arab countries have they been driven out of and with what bloodshed?


Approximately 700,000 Arabs became refugees at the creation of Israel. But when do you hear of the nearly 1,000,000 Jews who fled for their lives from the murderous, hatefulness of their Arab neighbors in the Arab lands where they once lived?

And now the Arabs in almost every one of their backward, violent and dictator-ridden countries are taught in their schools and in their media to hate Jews and to hate America and to hate all infidels. Certainly a useful tactic to distract them from their true oppressors, isn't it?

The poor, oppressed "Palestinians" are used to portray Israel as the aggressor when she defends herself against almost unremitting attack. And Arab oil-money, especially from Saudi Arabia is used everywhere to influence Western media with pro-Palestinian and pro-Arab propaganda. I just read that Saudi money has purchased a 30% interest in Fox News.

Not to mention that Saudi money regularly buys American politicians and hordes of lobbyists in Congress. James Baker and his American cohorts work diligently for the Arabs. And what about in England, France, Germany and so on?



Shootinstudent, you posted against America in our previous exchange and now you do it again, with the addition this time of your anti-Israel attack.

I wonder how many of your professors hate America and hate Israel? Do you get your ideas from them -- or do you just naturally hate the country you were so fortunate to have been born in?


matis

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 08:11 PM
It is NOT illegal to defend one's country when it is attacked and land thus acquired is NOT land-theft.

Yes, it most certainly is. You can attack and even occupy other countries to defend your own. What you cannot do is declare a major city in that other country your capital, and start moving your own people there as quickly as possible so that they can outvote any remaining natives whom you are forced to incorporate.

It's the difference between the US occupying baghdad to install a new government, and the US moving the Senate and House and President over to Baghdad, along with a few million american transplants to set up shop and turn Iraq into "New Texas", the 51st state. The first type of occupation can be justified; the second cannot. You didn't even make an argument about that, you just said "Israel was attacked!", as if that justifies any sort of response whatsoever. It doesn't, and being a country that was founded in large part through anti-British terrorism, it's especially dubious to claim a right to annex and re-populate land based on Israel's being attacked.


And now the Arabs in almost every one of their backward, violent and dictator-ridden countries are taught in their schools and in their media to hate Jews and to hate America and to hate all infidels. Certainly a useful tactic to distract them from their true oppressors, isn't it?

Exactly my point. Not only do our oil dollars pay for these oppressors, but support for the 1967 land grab has given them plenty of ammunition with which to shift the blame for their failures.

As for the rest, I'm glad you're proud of your heritage. But having a proud heritage doesn't justify annexing another country's cities and declaring it the capital of your country.

Shootinstudent, you posted against America in our previous exchange and now you do it again, with the addition this time of your anti-Israel attack.

Not once have I posted against America. Nor am I "against Israel." You don't have to hate Israel or the US to criticize their policies. Indeed, if I really hated America and Israel, I'd push for them both to become more violent and to seize arab land left and right...that's exactly what Al Qaeda wants, because it proves their propaganda right. Since I love my country and its freedoms, I feel more than free to criticize policies that endanger us and that are unjust. How's that for being pro-American?

GoRon
October 16, 2005, 08:45 PM
At some point the ME nations are going to have to take responsibility for their own state of affairs.

Once Iraq is stable and able to run its own affairs it will be an example of democracy to the other nations of the region.

Free or democratic countries have a good track record of not going to war against other free/democratic countries.

Once Iraqis are busy building schools, mosques and all the institutions of society, once they are busy working providing a better life for their family, enjoying the new prosperity and all the trappings of modern democracy, they will not have time to worry about the "zionists".

longeyes
October 16, 2005, 08:51 PM
Yes, it most certainly is. You can attack and even occupy other countries to defend your own. What you cannot do is declare a major city in that other country your capital, and start moving your own people there as quickly as possible so that they can outvote any remaining natives whom you are forced to incorporate.

Is this thread about Los Angeles...?

Or maybe...Kosovo?

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 09:05 PM
Is this thread about Los Angeles...?

Or maybe...Kosovo?

Haven't read the news in the past hour, but I doubt Los Angeles has been bombed and invaded by uniformed troops of a foreign army and declared to be its territory.

Kosovo...maybe, that's a much more extreme example though. The Serbs were trying to kill all the men and rape the Muslim/albanians there out of existence. There was no such extermination or other similarly horrific plan in the cards for the Israelis.

Jeff Timm
October 16, 2005, 11:43 PM
Did I miss a sarcasm tag? What orifice was this pulled from?

The Koran.

Geoff
Who suggests you read an accurate translation.

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 11:45 PM
The Koran.

Geoff
Who suggests you read an accurate translation.

So that we don't hijack this otherwise good thread, how about you pm me those Koran citations and tell me how you go about finding an accurate translation?

Derek Zeanah
October 16, 2005, 11:53 PM
NON-thread-hijack...

Good translations:
The Message of The Qur'an translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Found this after reading some of Karen Armstrong's work and loved the way it came across. Kind of hard to find (read: not Amazon), but The Islamic Bookstore (online) has it.
The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an by Abdulla Yusef Ali is pretty good (though not as good), and is cheap Published by the Amana Corporation, and IIRC really cheap on Amazon ($11?)

shootinstudent
October 16, 2005, 11:57 PM
NON-thread-hijack...

Good translations:
The Message of The Qur'an translated and explained by Muhammad Asad. Found this after reading some of Karen Armstrong's work and loved the way it came across. Kind of hard to find (read: not Amazon), but The Islamic Bookstore (online) has it.
The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an by Abdulla Yusef Ali is pretty good (though not as good), and is cheap Published by the Amana Corporation, and IIRC really cheap on Amazon ($11?)



Thanks. I use Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation; got a hardcopy version at half priced books for 12 bucks. For me, his explanations on translating arabic and notes on the historical context of the Surahs are easy to understand and informative. I'll have to look around for Muhammad Asad's translation now too.

Solo
October 17, 2005, 12:16 AM
Moslems are murdering devil worshipers. They MUST kill every non-moslem in the world. If they can't find any non-believers to kill, they kill each other and their own children.

Just like the Jews?

Art Eatman
October 17, 2005, 12:32 AM
shootinstudent said, "It's the difference between the US occupying baghdad to install a new government, and the US moving the Senate and House and President over to Baghdad, along with a few million american transplants to set up shop and turn Iraq into "New Texas", the 51st state."

Now, I've seen a bunch of bad analogies during the years, but that's nearly a record.

As far as Jerusalem and Israel and all that, the Arabs started the 1967 and 1973 wars. The aim was genocide (and still is). The Israelis won.

A better comparison of behaviors might be that the Arabs are like a bunch of little kids playing poker: When the game's over, they want back all their losses. Or, maybe, they could be compared to the kid who murdered his parents, and wants mercy because he's an orphan. (Which ahs less to do with the right and wrong of it all than it does my attitude toward whiny losers.)

As far as some parts of the western US, we didn't take those lands from "The Mexicans". We stole those lands from the thieves that stole them from the original inhabitants. :D

Art

matis
October 17, 2005, 12:53 AM
Exactly my point. Not only do our oil dollars pay for these oppressors, but support for the 1967 land grab has given them plenty of ammunition with which to shift the blame for their failures. (shootinstudent)
_________________________________________________________________

Right, shootinstudent. Self-defence is a land-grab.

The Arabs don't need ammunition to shift blame. They may not produce anything much industrial or intellectual (to speak of). (Right -- now tell me what great intellectuals they were 1000 years ago.) But they are highly skilled liars. They attack israel because she exists (why did they attack in '67?). And when she retaliates they give the retaliation as the reason for their next attack.

And when, in their bravado and incompetence, they blew themselves up along with Arab bystanders -- including children -- 19 people -- during a parade about 2 -3 weeks ago -- they blamed the Israelis. They tried to say that Israeli gunships did it. Even the Palestinian Authority said publicly that Hamas blew themselves up.

But you know the Koran, right? Doesn't it say that one can freely lie to infidels, make false treaties (Hudna) and so on -- so long as it serves Allah?

They do tend to lie, don't they? During the 1967 "land grab", didn't their field officers report to their headquarter that they were victorious, even as the Israelis were routing them? Didn't the Egyptians lure the Syrians and the Jordanians into attacking Israel by telling them of their great victories over the Jews. Even as the Jews were decimating them?

Saving face and honor are very important to them, isn't it? They even kill their own daughters for the sake of family honor, don't they?


So why should the Israelis do anything to reach out to them when they will lie and twist it all anyway. They have only one objective: to annihilate the Jews.

Of what use is it to offer them anything, gestures of goodwill, negotiations, etc. It has all been for nothing.

They know only strength. Israel is strong. Whatever she got she got by strength. She must STOP trying to negotiate and make deals with them. They NEVER keep any of them!


Personally, I wish the Israelis had "grabbed" a lot more land.

You do know, don't you, that the Israeli's had crossed the canal and were approaching Cairo.

They were within (wasn't it?) the outskirts of Damascus and stopped. It isn't that they were stopped. They themselves stopped.

They stopped before entering Amman.

They stopped in response to obscenely screaming world opinion and pressure from the United States. The same world opinion that couldn't care less about Europe's annihilation of her Jews. Wouldn't even allow escaping refugees in. Sent them back to Hitler. And the same world opinion that would have been silent had the Arab butchers succeeded.


That's why we need Israel. And why Israel has a right to exist.

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

Giving back the Sinai and Gaza and parts of the West bank earns her NOTHING from this wonderful world of Jew haters. It will cost her dearly now to deal with Hamas in Gaza. But she will deal with them.


And Jerusalem will always be her capital. As it was in the time of Kings Solomon and David.

Am Israel Chai (the Jewish People Live)!


matis

Cosmoline
October 17, 2005, 01:15 AM
Second rate agitprop--typical for the Arab press. Make no mistake, we are THE ENEMY to the people running that paper. There is no alliance, there is no friendship, there is no hope of either.

shootinstudent
October 17, 2005, 01:23 AM
As far as Jerusalem and Israel and all that, the Arabs started the 1967 and 1973 wars. The aim was genocide (and still is). The Israelis won.

Art, I see your point on the Arab states whining and losing a war, but to me that's not really relevant. It would be justified, IMO, to remove or topple the governments responsible for attempted genocide, and then return those countries to their rightful owners, as was the case in Germany and Japan after WWII. Warfare and international relations are not poker games; you don't bet cities that millions of people (who didn't vote for those governments in the first place) inhabit, and then lose them to another government.

I think the Arab and Israel tension preceeding the 67 war was entirely understandable. Israel had recently been created via terrorism, and the establishment of the state represented a sore violation of the promises the British government made to the majority Muslim inhabitants of the region. Still, I think attacking the state in 1967 with the aim of eliminating it was wrong because I believe that, as established, the Jewish people who fought the british out of the region deserved to keep their state.

I stand by my comparison of moving the senate and capital of the US to baghdad. Saddam threatens the US (supposedly, I'm not so sure anymore), so we invade and then declare Baghdad the new capital of the United States. How legitimate do you think that would be?

That's pretty much exactly what happened when Israel seized Old Jerusalem and the West Bank. It instantly transferred settlers in the hope of outvoting all the natives, and set up its national capital in Jerusalem. That is an illegal land grab by any measure, whether you agree with the aim of preserving Israel or not. Maybe the other evil Arab dictatorships do need to be taken out....but does that mean that Israel gets to ship permanent settlers to all of their capitals and declare them all Jewish states, to the exclusion of what the native peoples want?

shootinstudent
October 17, 2005, 01:35 AM
She should have taken and kept a lot more of the land that she captured in the 1967 war of self-defense.

Giving back the Sinai and Gaza and parts of the West bank earns her NOTHING from this wonderful world of Jew haters. It will cost her dearly now to deal with Hamas in Gaza. But she will deal with them.

Well, I mean you obviously have a religious belief that leads you to this opinion. That's fine by me, but it's sure not a basis you can expect anyone else to find reasonable. I could care less what the Torah, Koran, or Bible's command when it comes to making foreign policy, because I believe in law-making that relies on principles of reason that anyone can debate or accept.

And in those terms, ie, accepted practices in international law, the land grab was clearly illegal. Israel was founded through anti-british terrorism, antagonized all of its neighbors, and when those nations attacked, instead of limiting itself to neutralizing aggression, Israel seized their lands and declared it the Holy Capital of the Jewish nation. If you can't see how that would create a problem, even for reasonable and secular citizens of the Arab states (of which there are plenty), I'm not sure how else I can explain it.

Just imagine if the Iraqis magically transformed into a powerful army overnight, and in response to the US invasion, decided to invade Washington DC, rename it "Riyadh", and then declared it to be the capital of Iraq instead of an American city. Their reasoning for doing so?

"Iraq was invaded and the US, so we responded by beating them and now we have the right to annex any part of the US we want and to declare it an Islamic city." Would that reasoning fly? Why not, if it's okay for Israel to do exactly that in response to a threat?


And this separately, since it risks going way off in the wrong direction...
But you know the Koran, right? Doesn't it say that one can freely lie to infidels, make false treaties (Hudna) and so on -- so long as it serves Allah?

I'll be happy to see your citations and discuss anything you want in PM.

matis
October 17, 2005, 03:07 AM
QUOTE:shootinstudent
Well, I mean you obviously have a religious belief that leads you to this opinion. That's fine by me, but it's sure not a basis you can expect anyone else to find reasonable. I could care less what the Torah, Koran, or Bible's command when it comes to making foreign policy, because I believe in law-making that relies on principles of reason that anyone can debate or accept.
_____________________________________________________________

Shootinstudent, I do NOT have any religious belief.

Later in life I learned what my heritage, Judaism, is about and I fell in love with it. Assimilated Jews have no clue what their heritage really is. It is certainly NOT about left-liberal values.

Be that as it may, it seems too late for me to actually believe. Instead I love and appreciate the Orthodox and the Chassidim and do not respect what assimilation has done to Jewish belief.

My reasons for feeling as I do about Israel relate more to my desire for justice and MAINLY to my irrational desire to SURVIVE.

The United States is my adopted country (born in Canada) and I have come to love her dearly. It was a long road, since I was raised by a Marxist, atheist father. But I made it. I am here and I know and I deeply appreciate how fortunate I am.


But I learned once in a commodities trading class that one should NEVER BUCK A TREND. Unless that is, one wanted to get steam-rollered.

Anti-Semitism is 2000 years long and that is a very long trend. Sooner or later Jews in just about every country in the diaspora have had to face that trend. So much as I love the United states, I know never to buck a trend. So, although it is much less likely in the US, IT COULD HAPPEN HERE, TOO.

Besides being a source of Jewish pride, Israel represents a haven for Jews, should they ever need one. Sooner or later, in most countries, Jews have needed one.


Until the birth of Israel, my image of a Jew was as some one cringing with one hand held over his face, trying to fend off the blows. It isn't pretty. But my understanding of Jewish history in the diaspora, especially my reading as a teen-ager, every book I could get my hands on about the holocaust, left me with that image. This was before that word was even used.

One day in Los Angeles, some Israeli friends brought a film to my apartment. It showed a military parade down Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv.


For the first time in my life, I saw fighter planes, tanks, APCs with the Star of David emblazoned on them. I saw young Jewish soldiers, armed, strong and proud marching in their legions down the street.

And I was never the same again.

My image of the Jew had gone through, shall we say, a transformation.

I am a loyal American and I will defend my adoped country. My 17 year old daughter, may she live and be well, prospers here, as do I.


And I also love Israel and I will defend her as well.


I am proud that the Jews could drive the British out. The Balfour Declaration promised to the Jews for a homeland a hugely larger land mass than they finally ended up with. Included were parts of Iraq and all of trans-Jordan. The British were given the mandate of seeing this through to fruition. But like the American State Department, the British were partial to the Arabs and their oil. And anyway, who likes Jews.

The Jews in Palestine lived, for the most part on land purchased from Arabs and paid for. The British blockaded Palestine and wouldn't let in Jews escaping from Hitler. And they kept up the blockade after the war.

The Jewish Palestinians (Palestinians were the Jews, there is no such Arab people as the Palestinians. In the forties, the Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra was Jewish, not Arab) would not acquiese to British intransigence. And just like the Americans we beat them and drove the b@stards out.

Jews have always been a problem, you see. We gave the Syrian-Greeks hell (that's what Chanakah celebrates. American Jews think it's mainly about the miracle of the oil - one day's supply burned for 8 days. Actually it's about my namesake, Matisyahu, the old Hasmonean priest, who killed the Greek Officer and his Hellenized Jewish accomplices, as they tried to place Greek Idols in the synagogue. In the resulting war, the Jews beat the mighty Greek army.

In Massada we held off the Roman Legions for 2 years before they got us.

I love the saying, "Don't mess with Texas." And now that we have Israel again, don't mess with the Jews!


People like you are not new to us. And frankly I couldn't care less what you and your kind think. Your arguments are hair-splitting and childish. You argue as you do only because of where your sympathies lie. Reason has nothing to do with it.


We WILL prevail and your aspirations, unless you change them, will certainly be dashed.


matis

Cosmoline
October 17, 2005, 03:38 AM
I find it very interesting that without exception the individuals who complain bitterly about the division of the Palestine protectorate between the existing Arab and Jewish groups don't have any problem with the division of India between Muslim and Hindu groups.

Very very interesting.

dzimmerm
October 17, 2005, 03:45 AM
There is some basic history and quite a few links regarding the creation of Israel in 1947. It also mentions an earlier motion by the one time League Of Nations in 1922.

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

I did not read all of it yet but it looks pretty interesting.

The opinions so far seem polarized and I have found that searching for historical fact oftime defuses opinions.

dzimmerm

shootinstudent
October 17, 2005, 03:49 AM
The Jewish Palestinians (Palestinians were the Jews, there is no such Arab people as the Palestinians. In the forties, the Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra was Jewish, not Arab) would not acquiese to British intransigence. And just like the Americans we beat them and drove the b@stards out.

Right, the Israelis drove out the british using classic terror tactics, like bombing hotels and cafes where the british resided. I'm glad that you're proud of that, but being against terrorism in any form, I'd try to minimize that part of my history.

People like you are not new to us. And frankly I couldn't care less what you and your kind think. Your arguments are hair-splitting and childish. You argue as you do only because of where your sympathies lie. Reason has nothing to do with it.

Well, this goes right to the heart of the thread, if you'll allow me to get back on the track of anti-Western sentiment....how much safer are Israelis today because of the Seizure of Jerusalem? What if, instead of illegally annexing Jerusalem, the Israelis had instead attacked the brutal dictatorships, supported democracies in Jordan and Egypt, and then given every inch of the 1967 land back to those states? Better yet...what if they kept the militarily important Golan heights, but gave back Jerusalem?

Do you honestly believe that wouldn't have gone a long way towards quieting Islamic radicals, who were trying to sell everyone on the claim that Israel had a plan to expand and grab all the land for itself that it could, in order to drive out Muslims?

There are a Palestinian people today. Illegal action by the Israeli government has contributed to their identity and plight. I think refusing to recognize this is only going to make the problem worse, and inspire a new generation to believe that the terrorists are actually telling the truth. I'd much rather take the wind out of AlJazeera's sails by respecting the law and treating Palestinians as a people deserving of respect and dignity like any other.

Your idea of expansion and denying any legitimate right to the land on the part of the Arabs has had 40 years to show its worth....and all we have had over those 40 years is more terrorism. I think it's time enough for a new approach.

GoRon
October 17, 2005, 09:26 AM
Your idea of expansion and denying any legitimate right to the land on the part of the Arabs has had 40 years to show its worth....and all we have had over those 40 years is more terrorism. I think it's time enough for a new approach.

Blame the surrounding countries for segregating the "palestinians" into slums, blame the UN for the slums they set up.

Instead of welcoming their "brothers" they put them into camps and let them live off scaps thrown to them by the UN(US). Whole generations of palestinians know nothing more than hatred and dependency.

shootinstudent
October 17, 2005, 10:17 AM
Instead of welcoming their "brothers" they put them into camps and let them live off scaps thrown to them by the UN(US). Whole generations of palestinians know nothing more than hatred and dependency

Well, that's only partly true. The Arab states didn't agree to a UN partition, and then invade and annex the half that wasn't theirs.

Short history of how the palestinians ended up in camps:

-Hundreds of thousands illegally immigrate to Palestine, despite the fact that the people who were born and raised there did not want them.

-Those said hundreds of thousands formed political and paramilitary groups dedicated to establishing a Jewish state.

-After a series of Muslim-Jewish terrorist acts on both sides, they finally force the british (through violence) to withdraw, and get the UN to propose a partition, where the Muslim residents get their own country, and the Jewish immigrants get their own.

-The partition happens, and Israel is born. It almost immediately invades the part that was reserved for the original residents of Palestine. It annexes most, if not all, and can't grant voting rights to the people there, because they vastly outnumber the Zionist movement.

-They invade the rest of the partitioned piece in 1967, and are for the most part still there.

So, the state of Israel is directly responsible for where the Palestinians are today. Maybe it would've been nice and humane for the other Arab states to absorb them, but the Arab states didn't illegally send citizens to their land and then revolt to conquer it.

And hence we have people like Aljazeera, who get away with selling everyone on the evil westerner idea. Palestinians don't get to vote for the most part, lost the country in which they were a majority and native born, and are pretty unhappy because of it. If you want to change that...well, getting rid of radicals in other arab states is a good start, but it's not going to change what's happened in Palestine, and that'll need to be addressed also to help end US-hating in the Arab world.

matis
October 17, 2005, 02:50 PM
QUOTE: shootinstudent
And hence we have people like Aljazeera, who get away with selling everyone on the evil westerner idea. Palestinians don't get to vote for the most part, lost the country in which they were a majority and native born, and are pretty unhappy because of it. If you want to change that...well, getting rid of radicals in other arab states is a good start, but it's not going to change what's happened in Palestine, and that'll need to be addressed also to help end US-hating in the Arab world.
____________________________________________________________

Right, shootinstudent, right.



The way to "...change that...." is to do as was suggested above: expel the hostile population from greater Israel.

You have heard of Pakistan and Bangladesh, haven't you? Where are the Sudetanland Germans, now? Or the all the Germans who lived in other parts of Europe.

This was done many times in history. But if the Jews do it, then, of course, it's reprehensible.



And US-hating in the Arab world, to the extent it can be ended will be by forcing upon them regime-change, so they can begin their journey to the 21st century.

Or in the way we ended US-hating in Germany and Japan.




matis

shootinstudent
October 17, 2005, 04:04 PM
This was done many times in history. But if the Jews do it, then, of course, it's reprehensible.

Yep, and in every case it's been a disaster. I'm quite surprised you'd use Pakistan and Bangladesh to prove your point...look how much ongoing border violence there has been because of the odd partitioning system. Can you imagine what it would be like if, instead of leaving well enough alone, India had decided to annex the whole of Pakistan?

Expelling the Palestinian Arabs, who were mostly there long before 1948, would only make an already bad situation infinitely worse and more unjust. It'd be like Mexicans illegally immigrating to New Mexico, and then not voting, but rather forming a militia to expel or disenfranchise all the native born American voters, and then saying "hey, it's our land historically anyway so we deserve it!" That is precisely what the Jewish immigrants did in Palestine.

I'm sorry, but illegally immigrating to a country, and then snatching government away from the majority of the people who live there and forming your own new government on their land is just plain illegitimate. Even today there are about 3 million more Palestinians than there are Israelis out there...so why exactly should a majority of the population that's lived there continuously for the past 1400 years be expelled? What's the legal/moral argument for that one?

As long as we are in denial about the origins of Israel, we're going to keep giving tons of ammo to aljazeera type posters who want to make the west out to be the evil empire. One possible solution I think would be for israel to give full voting rights to all of the Palestinians....oh wait, but then there wouldn't be a Jewish majority. Is the need to maintain one religious majority over another, even when the government occupies land that includes more of the religion without voting rights, justification enough to support the current state of affairs?

I think it's great that Israel has offered western style development and a model for functioning democracy and civil liberty in the middle east, but now I think it's time to move beyond religious justifications for the government. If it can't find a way to incorporate the native inhabitants of the region, it's not a real democracy, and no amount of regime change in other arab governments will make the Palestinians forget that they don't have the right to vote on what goes on in their own homelands. Violence and extremism will continue, America and Jews worldwide will continue to be targets, and we'll have that much less to say the next time a religious group decides it wants to immigrate-and-revolt to create a new government for whatever religious reasons it might have.

Kurush
October 17, 2005, 04:53 PM
so why exactly should a majority of the population that's lived there continuously for the past 1400 years be expelled?By the way, it's a common misperception that Palestinians are Arab immigrants who took over the area when the Caliphate conquered it.

The word Arab has two different meanings, an ethnic group and a linguistic group. As the Muslims conquered the Middle East and North Africa they "Arabized" the populations, converting them to Islam and forcing Arabic on them. It's common to call Moors, Libyans, Syrians and Palestinians Arab but that only means they speak Arabic, they aren't geneologically related. The only actual pure ethnic Arabs are Bedouins and the people of the Arabian Peninsula.

What I'm driving at here is that the Palestinians are the same people who were there in Biblical times, with some Roman, Byzantine, Arab, and French mixed in.

This was done many times in history. But if the Jews do it, then, of course, it's reprehensible.You're admitting that the expulsion of Palestinians for the purpose of building settlements is similar to the atrocities committed against the ethnic German civilians of Europe after WWII, (see the book "A Terrible Revenge" by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas) but can't understand why anyone would want to stop the ongoing expulsions and settlement construction.

I find your argument repulsive, and what's more I find your tactic of making thinly veiled accusations of antisemitism to shut your opponents up to be despicable.

matis
October 18, 2005, 12:47 AM
Quote: (me)
This was done many times in history. But if the Jews do it, then, of course, it's reprehensible.


Quote: (Kurush)
You're admitting that the expulsion of Palestinians for the purpose of building settlements is similar to the atrocities committed against the ethnic German civilians of Europe after WWII, (see the book "A Terrible Revenge" by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas) but can't understand why anyone would want to stop the ongoing expulsions and settlement construction.

I find your argument repulsive, and what's more I find your tactic of making thinly veiled accusations of antisemitism to shut your opponents up to be despicable.
_______________________________________________________________




There are 1.2 billion Muslims and over 200 million Arabs living in 22 countries.

Arab land comprises around 6 million square miles; Israel is a postage-stamp sized country a bit smaller than the state of New Jersey.

Relatively few Arabs lived in this postage stamp.

The Jews maintained a presence since Biblical times; there were always Jews living in the area.

Most Jews were dispersed and the history of their experience living among the gentile countries is horrific to apprehend.


Hitler had a "final solution" to the problem of the Jews.


Those who survived that had a better solution: Israel. This was our country once and it is now the country of the Jews again.

All who understand and value their Jewishness can hold their heads higher because of this. And when the "goyim" where ever they live periodically go crazy again, as they have done for 2000 years, the Jews now have a safe haven.


Do the "Palestinians" have their side of the story? Of course they do.

But if Jewish refugees from Arab barbarism must live elsewhere, so that Arab countries can be Judenrein, then so can the Palestinians. Reality is not perfect.


Israel has offered to pay to improve their conditions or to relocate the Arab refugees in the camps, where they are kept in squalor by the other Arab governments. These overtures are refused.

Many Arab countries have expelled Palestinians with great bloodshed -- they don't want them. Palestinians are feared by Arab governments because they cause grief wherever they are.


You seem to bleed more for these people than their Arab brethren do.


You think my insinuations, of Anti-semitism are "thinly veiled." They are not insinuations but accusations and I don't know how I can make them any plainer.


You cry at the suffering of these Arabs at the hands of the Jews. The United Nations, most of whose member countries are run by thugs -- also cry for the Arabs -- constantly. I hear very little about the suffering and unprovoked atrocities that occur constantly elsewhere. Not much attention focused there.


But the focus of attention is always on what the Jews do. We are held to impossible standards that our accusers themselves don't begin to live up to.


Israel is here to stay.


She will do what she must to survive. She has from the beginning tried everything to make peace with her neighbors. (Most of what she has done is in my opinion, short-sighted and some of it -- suicidal.)

The wars were forced on her. And she won them all.

The Arabs will never rest from their efforts to destroy Israel. That is until Israel uses her military strength to settle the problem, once and for all.


Without expelling the hostile Arabs, I don't think peace will ever be possible. I only wish the Israeli government agreed with me. But I believe that when they have absorbed enough punishment (G-d forbid), they will do what has to be done.


I find those who cry crocodile tears for the Arabs, who savagely express their essences by aiming their atrocities at innocent civilians -- I find this hypocracy -- repulsive.


Arguments for the Arabs, that ignore the issue of Israeli survival, that is what I find -- repulsive.


Those who bleed for the poor Arabs and find reasons to refuse solutions that include Israeli survival -- it is their arguments that I find -- despicable.


And for Americans who argue that way, your pigeons are coming home to roost.


Unless Americans and Israelis -- and all "infidels" unite to face this evil that has re-emerged in the world, we will all end up back in the 7th century.


The Arab refusal to accept the existence of Israel is directly related to the Muslim Jihad against America, England, Russia, India, Sudan, Indonesia and against infidels everywhere.

You may find that indulging your indifference to Israeli and Jewish survival forecloses your own and that of YOUR children.



"Those who bless her (Israel) I will bless; those who curse her I will curse."



matis




Bob Dylan is back in the news. He's got a song he calls

NEIGHBORHOOD BULLY
Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.


Copyright © 1983 Special Rider Music

Columbia Records:



By the way, if the shoe fits, wear it!


matis

shootinstudent
October 18, 2005, 01:00 AM
Relatively few Arabs lived in this postage stamp.


That wasn't the point. You're dodging the issue, which is that there were millions of Arabs living in the postage stamp, and very few jews...that is, before the founders of Israel illegally immigrated from all over the world, and then, still a minority, undertook a revolt and divested the Arabs there of their rightful control.

I haven't posted a single anti-semitic remark. Israel is a state, and it has policies and institutions that can be criticized just like any other. I don't subscribe to the fallacy that one state speaks for an entire race of people, but you seem to be under the impression that the actions of the arab states speak for all arabs. Perhaps you should rethink your notions of the relationship between race and national governments.

She will do what she must to survive. She has from the beginning tried everything to make peace with her neighbors. (Most of what she has done is in my opinion, short-sighted and suicidal.)

Matis, again, I'd like to see your explanation of the bare facts of Israel's creation. I'm sorry, but illegaly immigrating to another people's country and then rebelling, instituting a government that limits political participation based on ethnic and religious lines, and then occupying as much territory as you can surrounding your new state is not in any way an attempt to make peace. If you can explain to me how the 1948 war and the rejection of the UN partition agreement was an act of peace, I'll change my opinion.

Is it permissible, legal, just, or whatever for people who are not born in a country to immigrate there illegaly, form an army, and then take it away from the people who have lived there for millenia? Even today, Jews are not a majority in the territories that Israel occupies. So what justification do you have for the continued occupation of the land promised to palestinians under the pre-48 partition deal, beyond a bob dylan song and your pride in being of Jewish ancestry?

If ethnic pride and songs are all you need to justify minority rule based on religion, I think you will have a hard time coming up with a consistent explanation as to why Al Qaeda doesn't have the right to invade and capture any country it wants in the name of its radical religious views.

matis
October 18, 2005, 01:22 AM
Quote: (shootinstudent)
Is it permissible, legal, just, or whatever for people who are not born in a country to immigrate there illegaly, form an army, and then take it away from the people who have lived there for millenia?
______________________________________________________________


Shootinstudent, your hyprocisy is pathetic.

You have just described exactly how the United States came into being.

And most other countries That is the way of the world.


I have been calling your arguments childish. But maybe Kurush is right. After all that I have posted -- and all that is available for anyone of goodwill to know and understand if they wanted to -- your arguments are redolent of Jew-hatred.

Why are you not railing against our treatment of the Indians. Why don't you give at least your piece of America back to them?


Jew-haters insist that Jews behave in a ridiculously utopian manner that you require of no one else. It just so happens that your insistence on Jewish purity would result in their annihilation. Oh, well. Tough luck, I guess. We'll have to find someone else to kick.

You may half-heartedly point to this and that injustice. But you save your vehemence for Israel and Jews.



You and your kind make me sick.


matis

Kurush
October 18, 2005, 01:29 AM
[long unfocused rant, even Arabs hate Palestinians, everyone who disagrees with me is anti-semitic, etc etc]I'm not going to argue with you, you are obviously not interested in seeing anyone else's viewpoint.

But for everyone lurking here, I ask you to consider which side of this debate shows concern for the well being of both sides of the conflict, and which side has deprecated the value of the lives of one side by referring to them as "barbarians" and "highly skilled liars".

Matis likes to compare everyone but himself to Hitler, but casting your enemies as vermin is a tactic they both seem fond of.

As for me, the quote in my signature explains my viewpoint better than I can.

shootinstudent
October 18, 2005, 01:34 AM
Let me start by pointing out what you did not include:

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

Now I'll address your personal comments:
I have been calling your arguments childish. But maybe Kurush is right. After all that I have posted -- and all that is available for anyone of goodwill to know and understand if they wanted to -- your arguments are redolent of Jew-hatred.

Why are you not railing against our treatment of the Indians. Why don't you give at least your piece of America back to them?

For one, I'm not posting about the Indians because this is a thread on reasons for anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world. It would be a bit silly to start posting on the evils of wiping out all the native americans and taking their land, which, I agree, was wrong. It's water under the bridge by now, especially because of point two...

Why don't you give at least your piece of America back to them?

I support honoring the treaties that the US government made, which do grant land. Likewise, I support honoring the partition agreement, which gave some land to the Palestinian arabs, and left some for the Jewish immigrants. Israel did not respect that agreement.

On top of this, I would most certainly be more than upset if my government decided that Indians had no voting rights, especially if a majority of the country were still indian. Would you support expelling all Native Americans to somewhere else because of the separatist-leanings of the AIM and the Leonard Peltier crowd?

I think perhaps you have resorting to calling me an anti-semite because you can't come up with a rational explanation for your position. That's fine, but I hope you will recognize it for what it is. I'm criticizing illegal land grabs and minority rule based on religious identity, and I don't care who does it...Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus, it's wrong to disenfranchise and expel millions of people from their homes because you can't risk letting them vote.

And, back to the topic, the continued denial of what happened in 1948 along with the subsequent refusal to take any steps towards giving Palestinian arabs rights of self-determination in their homeland, is fueling anti-American and anti-Israeli sentinment all over the world. I think you, by pretending that nothing bad has gone on, are only helping to prove correct the propaganda of the hate-mongers when it claims that no one cares about the Arab point of view and that any attack on Arabs will be justified if it supports Israel.

matis
October 18, 2005, 01:40 AM
Quote:
I'm not going to argue with you, you are obviously not interested in seeing anyone else's viewpoint. (Kurush)
______________________________________________________________




I would dearly like to see your viewpoint, Kurush.


It just so happens that your viewpoint would lead to the destruction of Israel and ultimately of me and mine.


So you'll just have to get by without my seeing your viewpoint.



Why don't you start your own campaign to give America back to the Indians?




matis

matis
October 18, 2005, 01:48 AM
Shootinstudent,


Here, you can have the last word. I'm tired of banging my head on the wall.


Our survival, our very existence is against all odds. Some call the re-birth of modern Israel a miracle. We have out-lasted all, great and small, who intended our destruction.


So in real life, we'll see who gets the last word, won't we?



matis

shootinstudent
October 18, 2005, 01:51 AM
But for everyone lurking here, I ask you to consider which side of this debate shows concern for the well being of both sides of the conflict, and which side has deprecated the value of the lives of one side by referring to them as "barbarians" and "highly skilled liars".
.

Kurush, I think I'll adopt your approach. Thanks for the info and for your comments, and now it's time for me to check out of this one.

matis
October 18, 2005, 02:48 AM
Quote:
which side has deprecated the value of the lives of one side by referring to them as "barbarians"
_______________________________________________________________


In case anyone is still unsure why I call these people "barbarians", I suggest you peruse a site called: www.ogrish.com


Click on archive, then either on terrorism or on war.


If you have the stomach for it, you can see photos and videos of what these lovely people perpetrate.

See the bloody body parts strewing the street after a bus bombing in Israel.

Or especially, see the Muslim spectators applauding as they watch a man shreiking while they saw his head off.

Or see the Muslim spectators applauding as a man screams while the barbarians shove a sword up his rectum until it emerges out his back at one of his shoulder blades. Amazing how long these poor souls can stay alive and scream.


See the joy on the faces of these lovely people as they applaud their fellow human-being brutalized until death ends their agony.

Sure makes these lovely guys' day.



And to bring it back home, see the videos of the WTC tower jumpers. Watch as they tumble head over heels until they pulp themselves on the ground.


War is not pretty and people get torn up.


But this is not war; these are the savage, barbarian acts of human animals without pity or human feeling.

These are the kinds of people Israel has had to cope and "make peace" with.


Judge for yourself. I calls them as I sees them.



Then Kurush and shootinstudent can explain these outrages away.

You know -- I'm "...just not interested in seeing their point of view".



matis

silverlance
October 18, 2005, 04:08 AM
Image that I am Israel. My neighbor, whose family has lived on this street just as long as mine has (Jewish ancestral claims to land) hates me because in the many years while I was away, my family's lands were used by my neighbor Palestine's family.

So my neighbor Palestine walks over and talks to the other neighbors (actually they [Egypt, etc] talk to him) and they decide secretly to invade my house and ride me out of town on a rail or put me to death if I refuse to leave. The neighbors convince their young sons that this is the proper response because their families have lost quite a bit of property (700k refugees) as I've returned to claim my family's land. Some neighbors even point to old documents citing abandonment and dimly remembered court cases (wars, treaties, etc) to support their argument.

But as they creep into my yard, the perimeter alarm goes off and I loose the dogs (Israeli Air Force) upon them. Oh Crap! The neighbors get bitten badly and poor Palestine gets a bucketload of 00 Buck from my shotgun, ol' trusty One-Eye (and my sidearm Sharon). It isn't pretty.

The other neighbors run off with their tails between their legs and abandon Palestine, who's badly wounded. I take away his West Bank lever-action and Gaza Strip bandolier, decide I like it, and kick his unfortunate arse back across the fence. As a matter of fact, I decide that if I plan to be able to fight off the neighbors again next time, I need more land to plant more crops to pay for better dogs (military) and better guns (patriots, etc). So I push the fence several hundred feet over and shove Palestine's family into the barn. Their barnhouse becomes my guesthouse, and I spend the next fifty years fortifying it in preparation for another attack.

Palestine protests loudly to all who listen on the corner about his unfair treatment. The other neighbors listen sometimes, and encourage him to keep throwing rocks through my windows. But whenever he goes over to their houses to borrow a cup of sugar, they chase him off with their own dogs. On the next street over, a couple of families that have only recently built their houses periodically come visit with me and ask that I give Palestine back his yard. I politely disagree with the Americans and the Canadians, but move the fence back twenty feet or so out of respect for these newcomers. As we sit discussing what else can be done to resolve my dispute, a rock come sailing through my window and hits Senor American in the head. He gets up, shakes his head, pulls out a Bazooka from under his baggy t-shirt, and runs out the back door.

I sip my tea in amusement. I guess I could do with a little less land. And I probably should at least give Palestine back his clothes (certain civil priviledges), which I ripped off his back as I sent him back home that fateful night.

But one thing at a time, one thing at a time.

...

Millenia ago, China was made up of many countries. A single emperor ruthlessly united them. Today China has only a single language and a single people. Was his federalization of China illegal? Was it unethical?

shootinstudent
October 18, 2005, 04:17 AM
silverlance,

The comparison isn't even close to what happened. It's more like: "I invite all my friends over from different parts of the world, and then declare the whole neighborhood mine....and only my friends get to vote on what our new government does. No one else gets to vote, and we kick out anyone who doesn't like it through force of arms."


Millenia ago, China was made up of many countries. A single emperor ruthlessly united them. Today China has only a single language and a single people. Was his federalization of China illegal? Was it unethical?

It is not a single language or a single people today, and there is plenty of inter-cultural rivalry. Are the methods of the chinese government in suppressing said rivalry and dissent unethical?

You betcha.

The problem I think is that a lot of people, especially in the west, assume that most of the people who founded Israel had been living there. That's not the case. Most of the people who founded Israel immigrated in the decades prior to the 1948 war, despite that immigration being illegal. The Palestinian arabs did not want immigrants coming and taking over their land, and I think that is entirely fair, since at the time they controlled it.

The only possible basis for claiming that the people born in other countries had a right to control Palestine/Israel is religious, and as far as I'm concerned people shouldn't be invading or overthrowing other countries because their religion says they have a right to the land. But that's water under the bridge, because even if you accept a right to establish Israel, the first move the new state took was to invade the Palestinian land that had been reserved for Palestinian coexistence. Now, Israel occupies a geographical area inhabited by millions more arabs...who don't vote.

The barn and neighbor analogy is neat, but it doesn't fit the situation.

Kurush
October 18, 2005, 04:45 AM
Then Kurush and shootinstudent can explain these outrages away.

I have no need to explain them away. The fact that you think the innocent civilians whose houses are bulldozed for Israeli settlements are the same person as the various terrorists because of their (purportedly) shared race simply unmasks your racism.

Honestly it makes me sad to read your diatribes. I see someone who has converted fear into an irrational hatred and paranoia. You cannot understand that not all Arabs are the same person. You cannot understand that Israel's existence is not a dichotomy between cruel domination and its own annihilation. You cannot understand that anyone could sincerely sympathise with the cruelties inflicted on the Palestinians. I pity you for your lost humanity. I don't expect you to understand that, but there it is.

As I said before, you are clearly not interested in discussing, only in attacking. I have no interest in slinging mud, so there is no point to responding to you further. I am now adding you to my ignore list.

javafiend
October 18, 2005, 06:34 AM
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 (http://www.ussliberty.org/).

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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471678783/qid=1129627460/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7929783-4516825?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Stephen Kinzer. Kinzer also wrote Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674075900/qid=1129627516/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7929783-4516825?v=glance&s=books).

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 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567512526/qid=1129627631/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-7929783-4516825?v=glance&s=books) 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. (http://nytimes.com/2005/10/18/international/middleeast/18iraq.html?hp&ex=1129694400&en=d7956d9a5be07412&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

Byron Quick
October 18, 2005, 07:00 AM
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.:barf: 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
October 18, 2005, 11:57 AM
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
October 18, 2005, 12:12 PM
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?:rolleyes:

matis
October 18, 2005, 01:27 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 02:02 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 02:22 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 03:01 PM
that all the arab states that declare sympathy for the poor palestinians don't like opening their borders to them?

shootinstudent
October 18, 2005, 04:20 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 08:18 PM
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" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0452285674/qid=1129677198/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7929783-4516825?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) 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
October 18, 2005, 09:05 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 09:15 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 09:35 PM
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? :scrutiny:

Mongo the Mutterer
October 18, 2005, 09:36 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 10:42 PM
Mongo,

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

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
October 18, 2005, 11:02 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 11:14 PM
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
October 18, 2005, 11:25 PM
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
October 19, 2005, 12:54 AM
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
October 19, 2005, 01:04 AM
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
October 19, 2005, 01:16 AM
[QUOTE][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
October 19, 2005, 01:21 AM
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:neener:

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 01:29 AM
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
October 19, 2005, 04:36 AM
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
October 19, 2005, 01:15 PM
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.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 03:22 PM
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.

No, they didn't. They issued a general call for peace that applied to both Israel and the Arab states at the same time. All of the UN resolutions relating to that subject are here: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/

I've searched every one and have not found the one-sided condemnation you speak of. Could you please cite the resolution that condemns arab aggression in specific terms, and supports the Israeli government?



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.

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that too. Neither the Avalon project records nor the UN's website on Palestine has any such document. I did cite above, however, the UN agreement to a partitioned state with borders much smaller than those that Israel came to occupy. Could you show me what I'm missing?

And if you look at the resolutions for every war following the 1948 war...it's also no contest: Only the US is on the side of Israel.

silverlance
October 19, 2005, 04:12 PM
2 things:

1. land siezed in warfare has ALWAYS been annexed. it happens all over the world, even today. sometimes its even between relatively large countries - take the dispute over kashmir, for instance. whoever has got boots on the ground has got control of it.

why does the UN and all those toothless dogs make up these laws about what can and cannot be done in war? only because they wanted to avoid nuclear war. nobody gives a flying hoot what non-nuke countries do. the only reason why after decades and centuries of fighting over kashmire people care about it today is because both india and paki have nukes and they are both involved in bush's WOT.

2. 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.

so in by this argument, all the israelis have to do is keep control of what's theirs for another oh... 944 years? well, it looks like they're planning to do just that.

...

from my standpoint, one of a people who have always throughout history been forced to flee from one battle, disaster, or famine, what israel has done is defend herself, make palestine pay for having the stupidity to try to kill her, and then - and only then - making a poor choice in defining the way which it will then live with the rest of palestine. we all know israel is wealthy. it may smack of anti-semitism, but we all do know that jews really do have controlling shares in big businesses all over the world. no, they may not control the world, but they do own a good deal of it. can't they find a way to use their wealth to buy the friendship of the palestinians? or does it always have to be a battle of pride?

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 04:27 PM
1. land siezed in warfare has ALWAYS been annexed. it happens all over the world, even today. sometimes its even between relatively large countries - take the dispute over kashmir, for instance. whoever has got boots on the ground has got control of it.

Wrong. Colonialism failed, and Europe has a long legal tradition of respecting the land rights of inhabitants. Note that Napoleon's defeat and Hitler's defeat didn't leave the British and America with new states.

Here's what the UN Security Council says about Israel's land seizures, by a vote of 12-0:

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/db942872b9eae454852560f6005a76fb/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument

so in by this argument, all the israelis have to do is keep control of what's theirs for another oh... 944 years? well, it looks like they're planning to do just that.

In 944 years, it is virtually certain that no political institution which exists today will exist. The world will be different, and we'll deal with that when it happens...there's a difference between trying to reach back 1000 years to remedy an injustice, and dealing with it when it's presently on the table. Just as it is silly to try and reach back to punish the germanic hordes for invading Europe, it's silly to blame the Palestinian inhabitants of modern times for the Arab conquests (which, ironically, saved the Jews and several christian minorities from extinction.)


from my standpoint, one of a people who have always throughout history been forced to flee from one battle, disaster, or famine, what israel has done is defend herself, make palestine pay for having the stupidity to try to kill her, and then - and only then - making a poor choice in defining the way which it will then live with the rest of palestine

First, Palestine wasn't trying to "kill her" because she didn't exist. A bunch of illegal immigrants founded Israel inside of Palestine's land, which of course created a problem, but it seems that most Palestinians would've accepted a partition. And that would be good...the Jewish people had been abused worldwide and did need somewhere to be safe, and even though illegitimate, a functioning state was formed rather quickly in the former Palestine. This might have been water under the bridge by now except....

....that it was hardly just a "poor choice" to ignore all international and local agreement, and invade the rest of the territory, killing or expelling everyone who got in the way. That act is directly responsible for the overwhelming hatred and radicalism that exists today, and it's going to take a long time and a lot of honesty about the past to remedy the situation.

can't they find a way to use their wealth to buy the friendship of the palestinians? or does it always have to be a battle of pride?

That's all I'm advocating. Relinquishing at least a significant portion of the land that was promised for Arab rule under the original UN agreements, and compensating the refugees who left or were expelled from their homes to camps around the arab world would do much to set us all on a course for coexistence. But given the level of denial in the US and Israel about just what happened in 48, 67, and 73....that's not likely to happen anytime soon, unfortunately.

Byron Quick
October 19, 2005, 04:33 PM
Note that Napoleon's defeat and Hitler's defeat didn't leave the British and America with new states.


You will pick and choose won't you? Tell me that the defeat of the Axis powers did not leave the USSR with annexed, conquered territory. Tell the Japanese that Russia doesn't occupy Japanese territory to this day.

The British annexed the Cape Colony in Africa as a direct result of its participation in the Napoleonic Wars. Once again, check the record.

It's amazing that the things you leave out are the things that don't support your position.

About the only thing way that America participated in the Napoleonic Wars was the War of 1812 could be considered a peripheral conflict to the Napoleonic Wars. The result of that war was not to gain additional territory for the US. However, if we had not prevailed over the British, we would have likely lost the Louisiana Purchase to occupation by Britain.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 04:46 PM
You will pick and choose won't you? Tell me that the defeat of the Axis powers did not leave the USSR with annexed, conquered territory. Tell the Japanese that Russia doesn't occupy Japanese territory to this day.


Good examples: because annexation was universally regarded as illegitimate, the Eastern bloc states always had 'independent" puppet governments that supposedly freely allied with Russia.

The Kuril Islands dispute isn't settled on either side, and it's more water rights than land....so that's not really relevant.

The British annexed the Cape Colony in Africa as a direct result of its participation in the Napoleonic Wars. Once again, check the record.

See above. All the western powers in Europe tried to establish strong colonies, and the system as a whole was a total failure.

It's amazing that the things you leave out are the things that don't support your position.

I've included plenty of documentation on the international recognition that supports my claims about the situation in Palestine and Israel. Did you find those documents proving that no one supported the Arab states except for China?

Byron Quick
October 19, 2005, 04:52 PM
The codemnation of the Arab states was not by the UN general assembly. It was by the State Department of the US, the Foreign Ministry of the USSR, and the Secretary-General of the UN.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 05:07 PM
The codemnation of the Arab states was not by the UN general assembly. It was by the State Department of the US, the Foreign Ministry of the USSR, and the Secretary-General of the UN.

Do you have a citation to the documents that show this?

All of the above participated in the UN resolutions outlining the partition agreement and condemning the later illegal land seizures...

Byron Quick
October 19, 2005, 05:35 PM
The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:

The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight. Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19.


How about out of the mouth of their one of their own representatives speaking to the UN Security Council? Exact source reference. Tell me, why didn't the Arab representative deny that the Arabs had started the war? It was in the Arabs' interest to do so. The reaon is as he had stated, the Arab nations told the entire world that they would destroy Israel and start the war. From the mouth of an official Arab representative, speaking to the UN Security Council in 1948, directly and bluntly contradicting your position.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 05:55 PM
Tell me, why didn't the Arab representative deny that the Arabs had started the war? It was in the Arabs' interest to do so. The reaon is as he had stated, the Arab nations told the entire world that they would destroy Israel and start the war.

This is an odd quote, because it's dated before Israel's declaration of independence. How do you destroy a country that doesn't officially exist yet?

I'm searching now, and will update this post if I can find the primary source. What you posted is apparently only available (judging by the secondary source text you included in the quote) from www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org, and is not directly from the text of the Security Council records. If you have an online cite to the actual records, that would be much appreciated.

Looks like I'll have to take a trip to the library to check the source out. In the meantime, here's the resolution the Security council passed one day after that testimony:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/scres046.htm

Being that Israel had not yet declared independence, I think said declaration a few months later was pretty obviously a violation of (d):

(d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;

And on top of this....did you get those statements by the Secretary General, USSR, and US representatives?

matis
October 19, 2005, 06:35 PM
Quote:
we all know israel is wealthy. it may smack of anti-semitism, but we all do know that jews really do have controlling shares in big businesses all over the world. no, they may not control the world, but they do own a good deal of it. can't they find a way to use their wealth to buy the friendship of the palestinians? or does it always have to be a battle of pride? (Silverlance)
______________________________________________________________

Silverlance, I know you are not anti-semitic.

As a group, Jews are more affluent, because of the values I mentioned in earlier posts, not because we are a cabal of international financiers.

And although I am certain that Jewish wealth and share ownership is higher per capita, I don't think it's quite what you think it is. If it is, then I am p/ssed! 'cause someone stole MY share!


Other groups, such as overseas Chinese and Indians also have higher IQ, more professionals and business people, higher per capita income and more wealth than the mainstream.

It's just that in our case, until the re-birth of Israel, ALL of us were ALWAYS "overseas" (grin).

Be that as it may, my beef with Israel is that she is far too often making overtures to the Arabs -- with very little except dead and crippled Jews to show for it. That is why I believe that only military strength can solve the problem.

They do use their strength, but only, it seems to me, when things get desperate. They need to take the initiative once and for all and not just repel attacks.


As for gestures of goodwill, Israel is the only side that makes them. The Arabs don't and almost always spit on the hand that Israel extends. When agreement (Hudna) are made, they're like our treaties with the Soviet Union. The Arabs immediately abrogate their agreements, the Israelis do their best to keep theirs.

Israel offered, as I mentioned, to work with the Arabs to end the refugee camps. Of course the Arabs want the Pals in misery, to use them against Israel. They refused any money or help for this problem.

The latest example of Arab intransigence is particulary galling to me.


Although I was adamantly against ripping Jews out of their homes and giving the land to the terrorist enemy who had killed and maimed them, the Israeli government didn't ask me.


Some naive, but wealthy American Jews, who really believed that the "disengagement" could produce a good result -- they came up with 14 million dollars to buy the Gush Katif greenhouses in order to hand them over, intact, to the Pals (the very idea makes me sick). Their idea was to creat "good-will" among the Pals, and to give them the means to continue the employment of the 12,000 (!) Arabs who had earned their living working in these green-houses.

When the Jews came to Gush Katif, 30 years ago, there was nothing but sand-dunes there. The Arabs thought this area "cursed". The Jews struggled until they came up with the idea of green houses and ended by exporting flowers to Holland(!) and exotic fruit to Europe. They invented drip irrigation in Gush Katif. They produced a significant percentage of israel's exports.

What did the Arabs do with this gift? They tore up the green houses, ransacked them for glass, plumbing parts, etc. and then set fire to what remained. Just like they burned the synagogues, when they came storming in. (So why can't we, then, burn the Al Aksa mosque??)


My tough stance against the Arabs is not because I just hate them for no reason. I have followed events in this area for years, now.

NOTHING ever works with them except force.


Israel had just relaxed checkpoints and began allowing Arabs to travel the roads in the West Bank again. Another stupid "good-will" gesture.

Within days 3 Israeli civilians (a 15 year old boy and 2 women in their early 20's -- they were waiting at a way-station for drivers to pick them up -- hitch-hiking) were shot to death and 6 wounded by these lovely people.

So the IDF reverses the relaxations and bans Aabs from the main roads, again.

The Arabs immediately scream (for the nth time) that Israel is practising Apartheid(!). What would you do?


These are just tiny samples of what goes on there constantly.


Shootinstudent and Kurush and others who argue as they do, say they really support Israel but want "fairness" for the Arabs.

Sorry, it doesn't wash. If they don't know what would happen to Israel if their policies were followed then they are stupid, indeed.

And I don't believe for one moment that they are stupid.


matis

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 07:18 PM
Update on sources:

Byron, I checked your quote and it is accurate, although out of context. It's part of a long series of speeches, where Russia (siding with the Jewish Agency), argues against a truce, against a ban on immigration, and against a ban on arms importation into Palestine. The Jewish Agency representative joined him in rejecting the truce, anti-immigration, and anti-arms provisions of the April 1st resolution.

In contrast, Husseini repeatedly agrees to secure the Arab side from immigration if Jewish immigration is halted, and presses for a truce, so that the land claims can be sorted out via further UN action. His above posted quote is a direct response to what he calls "terrorist gangs" who massacred a few hundred Palestinian families in the Jerusalem area, and he ties the attacks on the Zionist militias to illegal immigration and their attacks on Palestinian Arab agents of control. "We did start it" means "We refuse to allow foreign militias to take over our land" to Husseini.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 07:21 PM
Be that as it may, my beef with Israel is that she is far too often making overtures to the Arabs -- with very little except dead and crippled Jews to show for it. That is why I believe that only military strength can solve the problem.

Matis, please list specifically the overtures made by the Israelis, and how many of them were implemented.

Byron Quick
October 19, 2005, 08:05 PM
It's part of a long series of speeches, where Russia (siding with the Jewish Agency), argues against a truce, against a ban on immigration, and against a ban on arms importation into Palestine.

But you said that no nation ever supported Israel in 1948 but the US!

Right,repeated calls to kill all the Jews, in the name of Moslem brotherhood, is simply a statement signifying a determination to defend the homeland against foreign militias. Thank you for decoding that. What part of killing old people, women, children, and babies equated with defending against foreign militias? Oh, I know, the babies would have grown up and joined the foreign militia. The women would have produced more future militia members, and the old people should be punished for producing current militial members. The calls for genocide make perfect sense in the Arabs' search for justice, now. Thank you for enlightening me.

shootinstudent
October 19, 2005, 08:17 PM
But you said that no nation ever supported Israel in 1948 but the US!


It didn't. You should read the Russian representatives speech. There was no Israel at that time, and what Russia supported was no end to the warfare. That of course changed, as Russia joined the rest of the world in labelling subsequent actions by the state of Israel.


Right,repeated calls to kill all the Jews, in the name of Moslem brotherhood, is simply a statemnent signifying a determination to defend the homeland against foreign militias.

Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian movement, as violently opposed to Egypt's government as it is to Israel's.

But no, no such calls for genocide exist in the UN debates. The representative of the Arabs at the UN, Husseini, called repeatedly for enforcement of the truce, immigration ban, and arms ban.

What part of killing old people, women, children, and babies equated with defending against foreign militias?

None. All terrorist acts of this sort are wrong and to be condemned, including those carried out by Arab gunmen against Jews in Palestine. The point here is that the Israelis did it too (repeatedly), and that the Arabs were also attacking Jewish armies....so not everyone was a terrorist who fought against the state of Israel, just like not every Zionist militia killed muslim women and children.

In contrast, every person who fought for the state of Israel in Palestine was a part of a religious rebellion, supported through immigration, against the Arabs who had been born there.

The calls for genocide make perfect sense in the Arabs' search for justice, now. Thank you for enlightening me.

I have repeatedly condemned both calls for genocide and attacks on civilians. Just as some folks (like Matis) on the Israeli side think the answer is to wipe out all Arabs in Palestine, some Arabs are radical...this is a problem that both peoples have, and there are acts of terrorism evidenced on both sides, past, present, and unfortunately most likely future. If you can't condemn all Jews for what Amir did to Rabin and for things like the shooter who gunned down about 30 people in a mosque, then you can't condemn all Arabs for what the criminal terrorists do either.

I think, to get back to the first post, aljazeera types will only lose their audiences when we stop treating whole populations based on the acts of a few, and start considering what will be the most fair solution possible for both sides of this conflict.

GoRon
October 19, 2005, 08:40 PM
The Palestinians have been playing victim for too long.

With the millions maybe billions in aid they have recieved they could have built Paradise on earth.

Instead their corrupt leaders steal the money while preaching against the zionists and americans who get the blame for all their cultural and societal failures.

If all the Isralies left tomorrow it would take no time at all for all of Israel to become one big slum. And the Isralies and Americans would still get the blame for pulling out all their capital.

Why don't they turn the west bank into a Arab/Muslim vacation spot? Why is it everyone elses responsibility to make them succeed? Is there no spirit other than hatred in them?

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 12:45 AM
GoRon,

The Palestinians haven't really received that much financial aid from anyone. Check. They do have a very bad problem with corrupt officials.

They don't control the West Bank. Israel does. Thus they would have a very hard time turning it into Paradise or even a vacation spot.

GoRon
October 20, 2005, 07:42 AM
This year, the Palestinians are due to receive $200 million in U.S. funds on top of more than $1 billion which the European Union and the Arab League provide directly to Arafat and the Authority.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90863,00.html
This is from a 2003 AP article, how many years did they recieve such large amounts of money with nothing to show for it?

Estimates are that the Palestinians have received up to $10 billion in international support since 1993. According to Nigel Roberts of the World Bank, this is ‘...the highest per capita aid transfer in the history of foreign aid anywhere.’
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17188
This article itself points out that the aid is only enough to cover 25% of their budget, but really that is a lot of money.

They don't control the West Bank. Israel does. Thus they would have a very hard time turning it into Paradise or even a vacation spot.
I'll cede you that. Although if money was spent responsibly over the years (instead of dissapearing into secret accounts) the lot of the average Palestinian would be much better. Instead of funding terrorists and uprisings they could do something unique like build markets or schools.

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 10:59 AM
This is from a 2003 AP article, how many years did they recieve such large amounts of money with nothing to show for it?



I think you are assuming the Palestinians have bee receiving assistance for a much longer period than they actually have. Granted-much of what they have received has been diverted. But out of what has been used appropriately-remember it the next time you hear the Israelis have destroyed a Palestinian police station in retaliation. The station was built with the aid money. A modest sized station will cost several million dollars.

The Richmond County Law Enforcement Center in Augusta, Georgia cost 30 or 40 million dollars twenty years ago. It needs to be replaced.

Consider the costs of a local highway project. Then take a look at the road net in Gaza. Even if they manage to get rid of the corruption, it will still take a good bit of time to see results when you have to rebuild an entire infrastructure.

On the other hand, if the Palestinians destroyed that greenhouse complex that had been purchased for them as a gift...they need to learn to defecate outside their nest. That complex would have been a major source of foreign exchange for them.

matis
October 20, 2005, 11:27 AM
From www.freeman.org


"Arab Lies, Gullible Jews, Passionate Anti-Semites"

by Jack Berger





The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."—Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trouw," March 31, 1977.



Reread that simple, concise statement and let it sink in. The only Palestinians that existed in the pan-Arab mindset prior to 1967 were the Palestinian Jews. Arabs were Arabs. Professor Walid Phares of Florida International University writes: "In the early years of the Tawheed (Islamic conquest of the Arabian peninsula), a Muslim concept was devised to achieve success against the enemy, Al-Taqiya. Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically dodge the threat. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy…both Jewish and Christian."



As the Muslim cleric Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali, considered the greatest Moslem after Mohammed, wrote, "If a lie is the only way to obtain a good result, it is permitted. We must lie when truth leads to unpleasant results." (Jerusalem Post, March 1, 1997) And again, as we look at history without an agenda,



In March 1946 the Arab office in Jerusalem submitted evidence to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry entitled, "The Arab Case for Palestine" which states in part, "Geographically Palestine is part of Syria; its indigenous inhabitants belong to the Syrian branch of the Arab family of nations, all their cultural and tradition link them to other Arab peoples….Indeed, the term "Palestinians" during the Mandatory period was used to refer to Jews rebuilding the Jewish National Home. The English language Jewish community daily newspaper now known as The Jerusalem Post, was until Israel's independence in 1948 The Palestine Post. And the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra was called until 1948 the Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra. (Harris Schoenberg, A Mandate For Terror, 1989, pages 14-15)



In 1967 the West Bank and East Jerusalem were captured from Jordan's King Hussein, and Gaza was captured from the Egyptians—and neither was taken from today's "Palestinians." From 1948 until after 1967, there was no outcry for Palestinian statehood on the part of the mythical "Palestinian refugees."

Joseph Farah, in "Myths of the Middle East," writes:



The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power. Palestine has never existed—before or since—as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.



There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass [after the demise of the 400-year Ottoman Empire]. (WorldNetDaily, October 11, 2000)



And in a miraculous conversion, leftist historian Benny Morris, in a January 9, 2004 Haaretz interview, stated:



The majority of those who call themselves Palestinian refugees never left the boundaries of the western Land of Israel in 1948. This has frightening significance for leftist intellectuals [fabricators] because it means the myth of Palestinian "exile" is false, and as a result, the "right of return" means nothing.



If you repeat the lie often enough, people will begin to believe it, and so they have. A people has been created that never existed in history. Al-Taqiya—the art of the lie…a way for Israel-bashers terrorist-appeasers, the passionate anti-Semites, to assuage their hatred and rationalize that the Jews today are no different than what we've done to them over the past 2000 years. Measure for measure. Given power and freedom, Jews act just like us. So what if their Old Testament says that they are G-d's treasured people. But the people who actually confer that special status on the Jews are in reality the anti-Semites and Jew-haters who can't seem to get Jews out of their collective consciousness.

Replacement theology posits the return of the Jews to our Promised Land in 1948 as something that wasn't supposed to happen. Christianity had claimed to replace the Jews as G-d's chosen, and Islam claimed to replace both Christianity and Judaism as G-d's chosen. For the anti-Semites and Jew-haters of the world, their replacement theology went out the window on May 14, 1948, yet it took the Vatican until 1994 to recognize the State of Israel. The Vatican recognized a non-people, the "Palestinians," in 1982, but for 46 years sought to de-legitimize the reestablished State of Israel.…Enter the "Palestinian refugees forced from their homes of 1948." But there is a problem—one that is so obvious that it defies rewriting by post-1948 revisionist historians…no propaganda, no jingle of rusty keys to homes that never were—just the obvious facts. Shmuel (Samuel) Katz, author of Battleground (1973), writes:



The fabrication can most easily be detected by the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged expulsion of the Arabs by Zionists was in progress, nobody noticed it. Foreign newspapermen abounded in the country…but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that the flight [of the Arabs] was not voluntary. In the three months that the major part of the flight took place, the London Times, a newspaper most notably hostile to Zionism, published 11 leading articles on the situation in Palestine, in addition to extensive news reports. In none was there even a remote hint that the Zionists were driving Arabs from their homes….Even more pertinent: No Arab spokesman made such a charge. At the height of the flight, the Palestinian Arabs' chief U.N. representative, Jamal Husseini, made a long political statement (on April 27, 1948) that was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; [but] he did not mention refugees…. The secretary-general of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees….When, four months after the [war began], the prospect of the flightlings' returning "in a few weeks" had faded, there were some recriminations. Emil Ghoury, a member of the Palestinian Arabs' national leadership, said in an interview with the Beirut Daily Telegraph: "The fact that there are these [Arab] refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously, and they must share in the solution of the problem."



Some Arabs left because of their leaders' directives, and some stayed. But in fact, those who had lived in Palestine were not owners forced from their land—they were tenant farmers, peasants and squatters on land whose rights were given to absentee Arab landlords representing the interests of the Ottoman Turks in Constantinople. The Ottoman Empire controlled the land in Palestine for 400 years. Arab intermediaries had acquired their interests to the land as local tax collectors for Constantinople according to the Ottoman Land Code of 1858. The Arab tenant-farmers or squatters never owned the land they now claim as their land "from time immemorial," So says no less a scholar than Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi in Blaming the Victims (page 214). In his in-depth narrative entitled, "The "Palestinian Peasant Resistance to Zionism," referring to the provisions of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858, Khalidi writes:



Jews often purchased land from an absentee landlord, [which led] to the expulsion of tenant cultivators….The land concerned had formerly been sparsely populated or uncultivated….But fellahin [Arab peasants] with long-standing rights of tenure [not ownership] were displaced in the process of Jewish settlement [ownership]. The fellahin naturally considered the land to be theirs and often discovered that they had ceased to be owners [which they never were] only when the land was sold to Jewish settlers by an absentee landlord who had acquired it in the decades following the implementation of the 1858 land law. (page 214) (Emphasis added.)



Yet, interestingly, corroborating the findings from Shmuel Katz's exhaustive study of various news sources is our very own less-than-Israel-loving Chicago Tribune. The Tribune was at that time run by Col. Robert R. McCormick, also not particularly fond of Jews. If, as some believe, the Tribune is biased today, it was worse under McCormick's reign, and so an associate of mine spent over two months at the Harold Washington Library in Chicago, combing through every back-issue of the Tribune from January 1, 1947 through December 31, 1949, photocopying each and every article (over 600) about Palestine and the Middle East. It was a fascinating adventure.



Between 1947 and 1949, The Tribune had its very own Middle East foreign correspondent in Palestine, a company man by the name of E. R. Noderer. According to the Tribune archives, Col. Robert R. McCormick, editor and publisher of the Tribune, awarded Noderer a $500 bonus in December, 1942 for "outstanding work on the battle front" (in New Guinea). He was one of the Tribune's most valued foreign correspondents and a loyalist when it came to the Tribune agenda. Quoting from the Tribune's own archives, "Norderer was in Palestine for the Jewish-Arab war, which saw the birth of the state of Israel. He was in Jerusalem when it was besieged for over 30 days by the Arabs [not the Palestinians]." (Emphasis added.) He was there, witnessing and reporting


events as they unfolded. In addition to Norderer, there were numerous dispatches from Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI). They too were there with their reporters. And in over 600 articles in the Tribune, from all these sources over a three-year period—not one report—not one sentence—about the Palestinian Jews (as they were referred to) throwing the Arabs (as they were referred to) out of the country. The only sentence that even referred to Arabs leaving (and this was a month after the fraud of Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948) was written by Norderer on May 10, 1948, under the headline, "Palestine Jews Say Their Star Rose on Jan. 15." (January 15 is when the British Army left Tel Aviv.) Norderer writes: "One hundred fifty thousand Arabs were estimated [perhaps inflated] to have left the areas of Palestine [the original borders] assigned to the Jews in the partition plan." That's it, folks! From over 600 articles that appeared in the Chicago Tribune, one line from the Tribune and nothing from AP or UPI! Wouldn't you think that if this huge, brutal, forced expulsion of the poor, defenseless "Palestinians" out of their own country at the hands of the evil Jews had really occurred, as sworn to in Palestinian "eyewitness accounts," it would be considered newsworthy by the esteemed Chicago Tribune or at least one out of three independent, anti-Israel, anti-Jewish news sources? Do you believe these news sources would conspire to keep such an expulsion secret? Did these news bureaus suddenly morph into lovers of Zion? Why is it that all the "accounts" of the brutality inflicted on the poor, displaced "Palestinians" seem to have been written by "historians" after 1967? Where were the poor, displaced "Palestinians" from 1948 through 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza? Al-Taqiya!


cont'd next post

matis
October 20, 2005, 11:29 AM
(continued from www.freeman.org


And then there is the litany of hysterical eyewitness accounts of Jews "massacring Palestinians" in 1948. A battle, in order to qualify as a massacre, is "the merciless killing of a large number of people" (Webster's Dictionary), like the massacre of defenseless religious Jews in Hebron in 1929—and unlike the recent "virtual massacre" in Jenin, in which it was initially reported by hysterical "Palestinian" talking heads, an eager CNN and the usual suspects, that "over 1000 innocent Palestinians were murdered!" This "massacre," backed up by legions of Palestinians and their "eyewitness accounts," turned out to be a battle in which 52 armed Arab terrorists were killed along with 22 Israeli soldiers.



And so, during the War of Independence came heart-wrenching reports of a massacre on April 9, 1948, the infamous massacre at Deir Yassin. In the PBS special, "The Fifty Years' War," and in the accompanying book by the same name, written by Jihan El-Tawri and Aaron Bregman, the lie for the greater good—"Al-Taqiya"—reappears, as an Arab eye-witness recalls:



The following morning the surviving villagers [after the battle] went to a meeting with the National Committee, the local Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem. It was up to the committee to decide how they should handle what had happened. Mahmoud [Mahmoud Assad Yassini] remembers that the survivors were asked to exaggerate some aspects of the terrible events: "When we arrived in Jerusalem, we were taken to a hotel near the Damascus gate. We started asking each other who had been killed, who was alive. Then the leaders of the National Committee arrived, including Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi [head of the National Committee in Jerusalem]. He invited some of us to his headquarters. He said: ' We want you to say that the Jews slaughtered people, committed atrocities, raped, and stole gold.' He said you have to say this so that the Arab [not Palestinian] armies will finally make a move and come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."



Hazem Nusseibah, a senior program assistant for the Palestine Broadcasting Corporation, was also contacted by the National Committee. "Dr. Hussein Khalidi phoned me," he remembers, "and said we must alert the Arab countries to what is happening. I was sure there were no rapes, but we were shaken by the events." Ironically, it was Nusseibah's broadcast exaggerating the atrocities that triggered the mass exodus of Palestinians [Arabs] from their homes. He recalls: "We transmitted Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi's statement mentioning rape and this and that. It had a devasting impact on everyone in Palestine, and the exodus began….It was the biggest blunder that could have happened."



Abu Tawkif and Abu Mahmoud resent the way these distortions of the truth led to Arabs fleeing their homes. Mahmoud observes, "Dr. Hussein Fakhri Al-Khalidi was the one who caused the catastrophe. Instead of working in our favor, the propaganda worked in favor of the Jews. Whole villages and towns fled because of what they heard had happened in Deir Yassin." And while relating the story on PBS, Hazem Nusseibah and Dr. Hussein Khalidi can be seen chuckling with one another about how wrong they were in creating the lie of Deir Yassin [which] definitely caused the Arab population to run away every time they thought a Jewish soldier was coming near.



Jewish forces didn't rob, pillage, rape and murder Arabs. Some Arabs moved from one place to another per their own leaders' instructions; other Arabs left out of fear generated solely by the propaganda their own leaders circulated to besmirch the Jews. Yet it is clear from the reporting that the makeover from "Arabs" to "Palestinians" was hatched years later in the back rooms of Egypt in an Arab attempt to liberate Palestine 16 years after Israel was reestablished.



After taking control of Egypt, Gamal Abdul Nasser created two liberation organizations to spread Egyptian Pan-Arabism. One was called the National Liberation Front (FLN) to liberate Algeria. The second, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was founded so that Nasser could liberate Palestine for Egypt, not for the benefit of the "indigenous Palestinians." In 1964, Nasser hired an Egyptian by the name of Ahmed ash-Shuqairy to form and lead the PLO. Shuqairy, a lawyer, wrote the original Covenant, which "omitted any specific reference to a separate Palestinian Arab state. Article 24 stated explicitly that this organization shall not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip, or the Himma area….The commitment of the PLO was simply to destroy Israel. It was not to liberate the West Bank and Gaza then under Arab rule, nor was it to establish a new Palestinian state." (A Mandate For Terror, page 16)



In 1969, after the Six Day War, Shuqairy quit his position, and shortly afterward an unemployed Egyptian civil engineer, at the age of 35, became a "Palestinian" and was appointed by Nasser to lead the PLO. His name was Abed a-Rauf Arafat al-Qudwah al-Husseini, later known as Yasser Arafat. Born in Cairo on August 24, 1929, his mother was a wealthy Egyptian from the prominent Abu-Saud family. Arafat's father had moved to Cairo in the early 1920s, over 25 years before the reestablishment of the State of Israel. There is no record of Arafat's father being forced out of Palestine in 1920 by either the British or the Jews. And so an unemployed native Egyptian found a new vocation as a Palestinian—Al-Taqiya!



And then there was the great "Palestinian" intellectual, the celebrated "Palestinian" professor at Columbia University, who poignantly waxed nostalgic about his early childhood years in Palestine and how his family was eventually forced by those damned Jews to leave Palestine—except that the "damned Jews" discovered that the esteemed Professor Edward Said never actually lived in Palestine! He too was from Cairo—an academic looking to become important, looking for a cause, masquerading as a poor, down-trodden Palestinian victim of the evil Jews. In real life, he grew up in the lap of luxury in Cairo.



His father, Wadie…emigrated in 1911 to the United States….At least nine years prior to his son's birth in 1935, however, Wadie Said was already residing permanently in Cairo, Egypt…according to the 1926 French edition of the Egyptian Directory….It was to Cairo that Edward Said's mother Hilda (Musa), of Lebanese origin, moved upon marrying his father in 1932, and it was in Cairo that the nuclear family continued to reside over the ensuing decades in a series of ever more elegant and spacious apartments, the last three of which were located in Cairo's best neighborhood on the island of Zamalek in the Nile River….[Not quite his standard line of, 'I was born in Jerusalem and spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt…' (Justus Reid Weiner, " 'My Beautiful Old House' and Other Fabrications by Edward Said," Commentary, September 1999)



Edward Said once said that, as a scholar, he had the intellectual responsibility "to speak the truth as plainly, directly, and honestly as possible," yet his autobiography, replete with fabrications calculated to advance his warped, morally bankrupt agenda, exposes him as nothing more than a skillful liar and a fraud. Said, together with Arafat, stars of the "Palestinian" cause, represented how a lie becomes truth when people have an agenda.


Passionate anti-Semites who manipulate historical facts will never allow the truth to abort their plans for our people. We've been at death's door many times over, but a remnant has always survived to continue our story to its next chapter. When a third of our people were in the graveyards of their golden medinah of Europe, as another third cowered in self-consciousness and fear of anti-Semitism here in America, and the balance were scattered in countries ready to finalize a solution for them—when the future looked like no future at all—G-d in his mercy heard our people and opened the gates to Eretz HaKodesh and Jews from around the world rushed to a barren land that nobody else really wanted. From the "displaced persons" camps of Europe, the desert towns in Arab countries, the shtetls of Poland and the gulags of Russia, from all the corners of the world, began an ingathering to a land that had never belonged to any other people…a land that welcomed our people back with love and miracles, and where non-Jews could almost be heard thinking, "Look what their G-d has done for them! How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, thy dwelling places O Israel!" We returned to the land, "Am Chofshi B'Artzeinu"—to be a free Jewish people in our own land... "And I will bring you back to the land that I promised to your forefathers, and there I will make you a great people."



Nasser may have lost the battle in 1967, but with the cowardly pullout from Gaza, I hope he doesn't eventually win the war. With Katyushas now falling daily into Israel, Israel has encouraged her enemies into believing its end is near. Arab lies, gullible Jews, and a United Nations teeming with virulent, passionate anti-Semites! This year, as Yom Kippur comes to a close, honor your last words of the Neilah service with your first promise for the new year—make "Next Year in Jerusalem!" a reality…Your children and grandchildren deserve their gift of being a proud Jew in our own land given to us by our G-d.



Shana Tova, Jack Berger

****


shootinstudent, when Hitler called the Jews, "vermin", he was villifying an innocent people as part of the Nazi "Big Lie" (tell a big enough lie, often enough, etc.) strategy.

When, in prior posts, I called the Arabs "liers" and barbarians, I was NOT doing, as you said, what Hitler did; I was simply characterizing them accurately.

And I do NOT, as you wrote, advocate "wiping out the "Palestinians". I want Israel to use her military might to take care of the problem of the terrorist, lying barbarians who are constantly murdering her people.

And I want all hostile Arabs expelled from Greater Israel.


matis

shootinstudent
October 20, 2005, 01:07 PM
And I do NOT, as you wrote, advocate "wiping out the "Palestinians". I want Israel to use her military might to take care of the problem of the terrorist, lying barbarians who are constantly murdering her people.

What you really did not do is list the non-military "concessions" implemented towards Palestinians. Remember, you claimed that all manner of "concession" had been tried and failed. I'd like to see them.


I can't believe I kept reading the article above after midway. It alleges a Catholic-Arab united conspiracy to destroy Israel, and is a perfect example of stretching some conspiracy theories, while presenting only one side of the story. Try this: Take the article you posted, and replace "arabs" with "Jews." How much does it resemble something aljazeera would post?

Continuing denial and a refusal to recognize the competing interests are going to make matters worse for Israel and America. If the west and its allies in Tel Aviv can prove that it's possible for the Arab Palestinians to get a fair deal from our side, that will take the lion's share of wind out of the sails of aljazeera's ship.

Art Eatman
October 20, 2005, 01:30 PM
shootinstudent, can you for a moment separate the "Palestinian people" from such as Arafat, Hamas, and the rest of the terror gangs?

The US and Israel have forever been benign in attitude toward the people--the Arab "Joe Sixpack", if you will. But no matter what has ever been done, the terrorist actions against Israelis on the part of the Gangs has been unending. The goal is genocide. Period, exclamation point.

Look at a map of Israel. The longest dimension is roughly that from Georgetown, Texas, to San Antonio. The narrowest width, prior to the 1967 and 1973 wars, is ten miles. Ten! In those circumstances, trading land for peace in the face of genocidal aim is stark, raving insanity. Yet, that has been tried--and to no avail. Even today, the attacks continue--as they will until every last Israeli is dead.

It is absolute fact that the Israelis, in order to merely survive, cannot afford to lose even one battle. Not one.

I've watched and listened to the Arabs and their sycophants for some 57 years now. The lies have been unending, and time is proving that Dr. Goebbels was absolutely correct.

Art

shermacman
October 20, 2005, 01:48 PM
Hey shootinstudent!
Take a look at how well the Palestinians are doing with their new land acquisition, the Gaza Strip. See how the newly empowered Islamo-Fascists are building hospitals, water treatment, irrigation, schools, businesses.
No? You can't see that?
Hmmmmm....... Must be Israel's fault. Oh, and George W. Bush's.
Maybe that they will start acting like a State when they have used up their supply of homicide bomb belts.

shootinstudent
October 20, 2005, 04:21 PM
shootinstudent, can you for a moment separate the "Palestinian people" from such as Arafat, Hamas, and the rest of the terror gangs?

Yes, absolutely. That's what I meant to do when I repeatedly condemned Arab terror attacks, and said they shouldn't be allowed to speak for the whole Palestinian people.

The US and Israel have forever been benign in attitude toward the people--the Arab "Joe Sixpack", if you will. But no matter what has ever been done, the terrorist actions against Israelis on the part of the Gangs has been unending. The goal is genocide. Period, exclamation point.

This is exactly what I am disagreeing with. Israel was founded by an illegal immigrant army, literally, and the Jewish Agency (that's an official group) that existed before the state opposed all of the UN's cease fire and immigration bans. After that, Israel launched a preemptive strike that occupied (in 1967) the entire remaining scraps of land reserved under the UN resolutions for the Arabs. I'm really interested in knowing: What benign gestures have been made towards the whole Palestinian people by the Israeli state? How do we know what negotiation and peaceful measures will work or not when we've had nothing less than 50 years of heavy-handed military action, with absolutely no effort to recognize the political or territorial rights of the Arabs?

Ten! In those circumstances, trading land for peace in the face of genocidal aim is stark, raving insanity. Yet, that has been tried--and to no avail. Even today, the attacks continue--as they will until every last Israeli is dead.

My whole point is that it wouldn't be a trade: it'd be a return of land that was illegaly (according to every single UN resolution on the subject and the Geneva Conventions) seized. It has not ever been tried. Israel has never even come close to making a good faith withdrawal from any the post 67 areas, at least not until President Bush had pushed for it in Gaza over the past couple of years.

I've watched and listened to the Arabs and their sycophants for some 57 years now. The lies have been unending, and time is proving that Dr. Goebbels was absolutely correct.

Please separate the radicals who advocate genocide from the rest of the Palestinians.

In return, we should expect Palestinians to separate these people from the rest of the Jewish people:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6556766/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_4167000/4167929.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/04/bus.shooting/

shermacman,

I'm continually amazed at people who will take a look at the Arab world, and then blame all Arabs for the situation. Palestine faced a rebellion in the 40's that stripped it of most of its land, and eventually all of its land. The palestinians for the most part live under military supervision, may lose their houses if a family member goes nuts and commits an act of terrorism, and have been dominated by Arab militant gangs (who rose to power specifically because of the Israeli rebellion in Palestine.)

They've been through all that, and now you're wondering why they don't have the most developed economy or political structure in the world? Maybe if they'd been allowed to have their own state from the beginning, and if the US hadn't been supporting radical governments elsewhere in the region (ie, Saudi Arabia, the officially Wahhabist state), we wouldn't have this problem now.

Just my opinion though, you're free to explain away those causes if you like.

auschip
October 20, 2005, 04:42 PM
Based on the following link, it sounds like the Arabs rejected UN GA 181, and then declared war on the Jewish settlers (some who were there illegally and some who were legal).

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

I found the link to be very informative, and mentions wrong doing on both sides of the issues.

javafiend
October 20, 2005, 04:50 PM
>>Wikipedia: ". Kashani's radical Muslims, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies" (Tudeh = Iran's communist party)

Then Wikipedia is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

US Secretary of State Dean Acheson described Mossadegh as "essentially a rich, reactionary feudal-minded Persian," hardly your Communist Party fellow traveler.

Remember that Mossadegh helped defend Iranian sovereignty against Soviet power bluffs. While sometimes the Tudeh Party defended Mossadegh's policies vis a vis the imperialist powers, more often it attacked them bitterly. In one instance, on 15 July 1951, a Tudeh-sponsored demonstration was brutally suppressed by Mossadegh, resulting in some 100 deaths and 500 injuries.

One secret State Department reported dated 9 January 1953 stated that the major opposition to Mossadegh's government came from the Tudeh Party.

See William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Chapter 9, "Iran 1953: Making It Safe for the King of Kings."

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 04:52 PM
shootinstudent,

Tell you what: the extremist Palestinians have this method of political debate with Palestinians who wish to have peace with Israel-they kill them. Not one or two or a half dozen here and there as Israeli extremists have done to some of their own moderates. The vast majority of them. Figure out a way to get the Palestinian extremists to stop killing the Palestinian moderates and then there might be someone on the Palestinian side to hold useful negotiations with.

You seem to think that Israel is the bad guy in that situation. In my view, Israel has been most restrained in its dealing with the Palestinians. The Palestinians would be howling if I had been running the IDF.

Remember how the Russians reacted when one their embassy staffers was kidnapped in Beirut back in the eighties? The Islamic militias released him PDQ, didn't they? I'd be willing to negotiate in good faith at any time. If my opponent chose military action instead, my military aim would be to make them decide that military action had been a really, really, really stupid move.

shootinstudent
October 20, 2005, 05:14 PM
Figure out a way to get the Palestinian extremists to stop killing the Palestinian moderates and then there might be someone on the Palestinian side to hold useful negotiations with.

A peaceful partition, which considered the desires of the Palestinian majority, might have done that. In the present, the only way to stop the Palestinian extremists is to convince the rest of Palestine that they are liars....which isn't going to happen as long as Israel has military control over the post 67 areas, because as long as that happens, the Militants will in fact be correct when they say that Israel is sending armies to conquer Arab land. There is no getting around that issue: as long as land is seen as unjustly occupied, its inhabitants will continue to become violent. Some only attack military outposts in the occupied zones, others take the even more grossly immoral and criminal terrorist route...but neither is going to go away without some step towards ending the occupation.


You seem to think that Israel is the bad guy in that situation. In my view, Israel has been most restrained in its dealing with the Palestinians. The Palestinians would be howling if I had been running the IDF.

What would you do differently?

Remember how the Russians reacted when one their embassy staffers was kidnapped in Beirut back in the eighties? The Islamic militias released him PDQ, didn't they? I'd be willing to negotiate in good faith at any time. If my opponent chose military action instead, my military aim would be to make them decide that military action had been a really, really, really stupid move.

In the first place, it was the Jewish immigrants who chose military action, and the Palestinians tried to make that rebellion a stupid move and failed. As a result, there were reprisals on both sides that have never ended. I think it's a bad policy because of this fact.

Second, the Russians are a great example....just look at how successful they've been in scaring people into submission. Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Georgia all came out willing to negotiate the Russian invasion of their lands with open arms because the Russians were really violent, and spared no scruples in attacking the insurgents and terrorists. Oh wait, I might be wrong on that....I'm pretty sure all three did nothing but fight every last Russian incursion to the death, and in Chechnya it's still happening. What have the Russians gotten themselves in return for occupying Kabul and levelling Grozny? Millions of people who hate Russia, terrorism, and rebellion. If the Russians, who are not exactly known for respecting the bounds of human decency in warfare, can't stop anti-Russian violence by military action alone, what makes you think the Israelis or the US are ever going to?

I want to make clear that I do agree that the Palestinian "leaders" like Hamas are criminal, and should be punished for all terrorist attacks they've committed. I just don't think they're ever going to go away until we let the rest of the Arab world know that we are willing to give them a better deal, and that they'll have our support and real consideration when they take the risks they'll need to in order to establish their own democracies and root out terrorism.

As long as the US and Israel deny that there's anything wrong with the occupation in the first place, what're the odds Arabs will believe us when we say we'll help them get rid of the terrorists and let them form their own governments?

shermacman
October 20, 2005, 05:27 PM
shootinstudent:
A peaceful partition, which considered the desires of the Palestinian majority
A peaceful partition...yeah that should work. Especially when the desires of the Palestinian majority seems to be summed up in one word: "Kill the Jews!" The Palestinians are not going to do anything other that sit around, collect Euro-cash, UN dollars and wire together belt bombs. After all, that is what they have chosen to do for the last two generations.

Byron Quick
October 20, 2005, 06:02 PM
A peaceful partition, which considered the desires of the Palestinian majority, might have done that.

Sorry, the Palestinians extremists were already killing Palestinian moderates at that time.

45auto
October 20, 2005, 06:04 PM
That article or essay was written by Jason Miller, a very left wing 'blogger' so to speak.

Which means, in essence, that it doesn't hold much credibility and simply "repeats" the same, tired, old mantras of the ultra left wingers.


Most of it is so inaccurate that it would take a long time to respond, and it's old news...and tiresome.


I would go to Victor Hanson's website and read many of his articles. He is much smarter than me and he writes much better.

javafiend
October 20, 2005, 06:06 PM
Victor Davis Hanson?

He's a very rightwing 'blogger' so to speak.

Which means, in essence, that it doesn't hold much credibility and simply "repeats" the same, tired, old mantras of the ultra right wingers.


Most of it is so inaccurate that it would take a long time to respond, and it's old news...and tiresome.

shootinstudent
October 20, 2005, 06:13 PM
Sorry, the Palestinians extremists were already killing Palestinian moderates at that time.

Yep, over the Israeli illegal immigration and rebellion problem. And if the rest of the Palestinians weren't busy trying to stop the illegal immigrants from taking over their country, they might've been able to concentrate on eliminating the radicals. But they never got a crack at it.

Shermac,

Especially when the desires of the Palestinian majority seems to be summed up in one word: "Kill the Jews!"

You should read the UN security council speech by the Palestinian rep, Jamal Husseini, that Byron Quick quoted from above. The citation in his quote is correct, and if you read his speech, you'll see what I meant....true, the Palestinians did not want a partition either, because they felt that the land didn't belong to Britain in the first place (so Britain couldn't give it away), but what they asked for was for a truce, an arms importation ban, and an immigration ban (for both sides) to be honored so that they could settle the matter diplomatically. It's actually a quite reasonable position, especially when you compare it to the garbage that Hamas and Jihad have come up with today.

Broadhead
October 20, 2005, 10:29 PM
From #41 in this thread:
"It's the difference between the US occupying baghdad to install a new government, and the US moving the Senate and House and President over to Baghdad, along with a few million american transplants to set up shop and turn Iraq into "New Texas", the 51st state."

Similar to the acquisition of the 50th state...

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter.

silverlance
October 21, 2005, 07:41 PM
you said in response to my post that "in 944, virtually no governments will be around... we'll see what happens then".

but, shooting, you can't argue that palestinians have the greater right to land because they've been on it for 1000 years (after the jews, and what not people) and then argue that the israelis are a condemnable state because they have started precisely that period of, for lack of a better word, probation that you point to as support for palestine's claim.

my point there is that land is but land. when god (or whatever you believe in) made this earth, he did not say, "this land is for you chinese people (although just what the chinese would look like or be i don't know)", "this land is for you algonquins", "this land is for you inuit freezing your butts off"... etc.

AFAIK, the british controlled palestine. they carved it up along with the allied powers to create israel. therefore israel is a state. so what if palestinians lived there? yesterday palestine, today israel.

now let's say the palestinians don't like this. FINE! go to war. WHICH IS ALSO OKAY. so they attack israel - get their butts whupped - STILL OKAY - and israel does what the british did before them, seize land (and they probably had more "right" than the brits). STILL OKAY.

but - BUT - now people are crying, "the israelis have illegally siezed property!!" whats so illegal about it? the UN says all this crap about whats legal, what's illegal. AFAIK, by the time the UN ever does anything, TONS of people have already died, damage has been done, etc. the UN doesn't keep the peace so much as react after the fact. and, its decisions are mainly politcal, not "moral".

FUTHER - even the crying and accusations are OKAY. it's part of political action. personally, even the corresponding guerilla attacks are OK. palestine wants to fight, that's their choice. I think that they might want to choose targets other than civilians because it makes them look like blood thirsty monsters, but that's war.

....

Just don't expect me to cry tears for the poor downtrodden Palestinians who started a war they couldn't finish and yet persist on making their own lives more and more miserable.

what they insist on doing - firing rockets after ceding of gaza, attacks as soon as israel relaxes military law - is plain and simple, stupid. stupid stupid stupid stupid. they need to gain the affection of the world, and although they do a great job of showing how oppressed they are, every time they blow up a marketplace or bus that sympathy dissapates.

people like matis are NOT the majority. the majority of the world would like to believe that palestinians are people "just like us". (not that i think you're loony matis, just that you're more extreme.. well you know.) but the PLAs are making it very hard to do that.

i like to think that great movement leaders like king and ghandi have come to the same conclusion - as long as you keep causing suffering - even in retaliation, PEOPLE WILL RESIST SUPPORTING YOU.

...

oh, and matis.. sure the chinese and others have money too.. but you see, the chinese are 1.7 billion and growing.. you see what i mean? it's like saying that the catholic church has far more money that the episcopalians or mormons.. but then you think about how the fat pie slices...

isreal IMHO needs to embark on a MAJOR political war campaign. they need to showcase themselves as a people bending over backwards to help the palestinians, to show that the the palestinians (hamas, etc) are not worthy of sympathy. maybe build parks, greenhouses (again!), etc for the palestinians. if they burn them down, put it on video and release it.

of course, the palestinians could do the same.

but the truth is, i think...

that these leaders who fight wars like to keep fighting wars, and don't want peace.

shootinstudent
October 22, 2005, 12:59 AM
AFAIK, the british controlled palestine. they carved it up along with the allied powers to create israel. therefore israel is a state. so what if palestinians lived there? yesterday palestine, today israel.

The British carved it up without the consent of the people who lived there. And yes, I did agree above several times that there's no justification for destroying all of Israel. But lots of land that Israel occupies (ie, everywhere where there is a "settlement") is still inhabited overwhelmingly by Arabs who absolutely do not consent to Israeli rule there. The issue isn't just the land, it's the consent of the people who are on it.

now let's say the palestinians don't like this. FINE! go to war. WHICH IS ALSO OKAY. so they attack israel - get their butts whupped - STILL OKAY - and israel does what the british did before them, seize land (and they probably had more "right" than the brits). STILL OKAY.

Israel started both the 1948 and the 1967 wars. The British did not annex the land, and never intended to. Not okay, by the Geneva conventions or by UN resolutions on the subject. If it's true that conquest always "makes things okay", then I guess every Russian and Nazi conquest of another country was "okay", because the inhabitants of the land didn't consent. That's an injustice.

but - BUT - now people are crying, "the israelis have illegally siezed property!!" whats so illegal about it? the UN says all this crap about whats legal, what's illegal. AFAIK, by the time the UN ever does anything, TONS of people have already died, damage has been done, etc. the UN doesn't keep the peace so much as react after the fact. and, its decisions are mainly politcal, not "moral".

You're right that the UN has been largely ineffective, but this doesn't change above. The question this thread addressed was: Why are people like aljazeera being believed in the Arab world? Answer: because their land was illegaly seized, and very few people in the west will recognize any problem with said seizure. I don't know about you, but if China decided to send advance units of immigrants, and then declared San Francisco Chinese territory, I'd be furious. I'd be even more furious if the Chinese claimed a legitimate right to rule based on some religious idea that China should rule the pacific, or even if they were Chinese rebels who said they needed safety from Chinese communist oppressors. Either way, a land grab with no democratic support at all is going to leave a sour taste in the mouths of the people who rightly inhabited it.



FUTHER - even the crying and accusations are OKAY. it's part of political action. personally, even the corresponding guerilla attacks are OK. palestine wants to fight, that's their choice. I think that they might want to choose targets other than civilians because it makes them look like blood thirsty monsters, but that's war.

In my opinion, you do have a consistent response, but personally I believe war should be limited if possible, and I think that maintaining a modicum of justice in government will help to do that. Which is why I support something like the original UN partition plan. I also think all attacks on civillians are immoral and, although it doesn't matter to me, I think they are ineffective. Just a difference of opinion here, but I do see what you're saying.

isreal IMHO needs to embark on a MAJOR political war campaign. they need to showcase themselves as a people bending over backwards to help the palestinians, to show that the the palestinians (hamas, etc) are not worthy of sympathy. maybe build parks, greenhouses (again!), etc for the palestinians. if they burn them down, put it on video and release it.

I couldn't agree more if I tried. I don't think there's a better way to fully discredit the terrorist gangs that are in charge of large sections of Palestine, and I think that when their lots improve, the Palestinian people will be much more receptive to working with the Israelis on a plan for self-government without employing violence.

If you enjoyed reading about "reading aljazeera: stuff for thought" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!