Of course Newt Gingrich (you know, the “big thinker” in the Republican campaign) made a lot of news by declaring that the Palestinians are an “invented” people.
As As’ad AbuKhalill–aka Angry Arab—pointed out, the New York Times ran a piece on this controversy on December 10 quoting exactly two sources: former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk and David A. Harris, chief executive of the National Jewish Democratic Council.
Times reporter Trip Gabriel also noted of Gingrich:
He described Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as denying Israel’s right to exist.
“You have Abbas, who says in the United Nations, ‘We do not necessarily concede Israel’s right to exist,'” Mr. Gingrich said. “So you have to start with this question: ‘Who are you making peace with?'”
It would be rather unusual for Abbas to have said such a thing. I cannot find any evidence of it (a conclusion reached by others, too). A Reuters piece about Abbas’ UN speech noted that he “told the United Nations he had no intention of denying Israel’s right to exist, but said he did want to delegitimize the settler movement.”
So “invented” people aren’t given a chance to respond, and apparently words can be put in their mouths by history professor Republican candidates.
Reminds me of Sean Hannity, on Fox News, stating to Frank Lutz stating that President Obama had said that people in the health insurance industry were bad people…when what Obama had actually said was that the latter individuals WEREN’T bad people.
How about that? The lies and vast historical ignorance are classic Gingrich. The palavering before Israel goes on to new heights, with Il Grandioso (Lewis Lapham’s name for Gingrich in his mock-opera written for a Harper’s essay when Lapham was editor there) scaling the mountain, with Romney right behind him. The exchange between those two was priceless comedy gold, in which each tried to outdo the other in their obsequious praise and knowing of and for Bibi Nitanyahu. They ought to all go on a triple-date together, perhaps a fishing trip and then a fun night’s stay in a hot, moist cabin somewhere.
I agree with Tim. Maybe they could take turns cleaning each others ears out. And just for fun, they should invite Dick Cheney and his guns. Whoever is left can then use their time to study Middle Eastern History, the Bible and a few other resources that will have factual information.
I’m dismayed to see the Republicans stoop to such choices as the travelling comedy team headlined by Newt, Rick, and Michelle. I guess they take Mitt along so they’ll have a straight man.
Seems like some are always willing to use the power of the mob to attack a strange thought than they are to consider it when it is said by such a polarizing figure as Gingrich.
Gingrich, who I completely oppose in just about everything he stands for nevertheless has a valid point, at least from his world view.
My interest is in the world-views of those here who are attacking him and why … there is a lot of open space there, some correct and some not correct. I have always found the support side for the Palestinians almost completely in the force of their arguments which always seemed aimed at folks who are unfamiliar with Middle East history however dislike Jews enough to not bother to want to go into a very objective analysis.
Talking to that side seems to always ultimately lead to … if one has the patience to tease it out … either blanket support for Islam/Arabs or blanket hatred of the Jews.
As Michelle Bachman pointed out in the exchange on this in a recebt Republican debate – the Palestinians have an ever developing social engineering technology aimed at brainwashing their children to hate Israel and Jews. To me, IF that is true, and the evidence I have seen supports that, what else is there to talk about in terms of does a peace negotiating partner exist on the Palestinian side at all, or even the possibility of this “people” generating someone that could possibly lead them in negotiating peace, because they are institutionally trained to reject the very idea, anything that associates with that very idea and anyone who even questions if the idea of peace might be worth thinking about.
That is a human rights violation of every human being on both sides that trumps any boarding of boats or attempt to defend themselves Israel has ever done in my book, by my way of thinking.
So, I am open to any logical argument that can criticize my logic, I realize there are a lot of Palestinians supporters here … so, if anyone cares to say something, for the sake of argument give me your thinking as it seems to you and lose the baggage of the normal arguments made here.
Dear Brux:
Remember in America in 1995, when Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building? People were stunned to hear him say regarding the children that were killed, that it was “collateral damage.”
Those two words shocked the world, but those two words no longer do that. Sadly, there is “collateral damage” every where. That is what I think about when I hear of this unending “peace process.” which never has peace.
Most of the time, it is the PEOPLE that bare the brunt of “leaders” decisions. I would actually like England to straighten out that mess that they left and put the dividing lines back to that time period and stop depending on that Balfour Agreement, which really never seemed to be an agreement.
Throughout history leaders come and go, but the People, they suffer and remain. That is the tragedy of this situation and all “situations” in the world.
Sorry too, Brux, but once you frame any argument into “them” and “us,” there really is no more conversation, nor any peace either.
Insofar as the Israeli-Palestinian issue is concerned—the double-edged question that we think Mr. Gingrich ought to be asking himself (and other scholars and historians as well) is, “Should any political party elect me as its candidate to run against the incumbent U.S. president in 2012 1) based on the subjective, nonevidentiary, faith-based belief systems of Christians, Jews and/or Muslims (excluding all other religious beliefs in the process, by the way)…or should the Israeli-Palestinian issue be decided 2) based on objective archaeological, scientific, and written evidence—the latter by those who actually lived and witnessed the historical events of the time?”
We’re objectively inclined toward the latter, of course. We trust scientific fact rather than fiction, whether that fiction is well intentioned or not. We are also inclined to trust that which has spilled the least amount of human blood. Religion is the source of a lot of death—and therefore (objectively) gives us considerably less to look forward to than science does. Said another way, those subjective, nonevidentiary, faith-based religious belief systems that gave birth to centuries of death and destruction just aren’t very bright and cheery from our point of view. But participating in a warp speed voyage to the stars of an endless universe…well…that is something that definitely uplifts us, and gives us something to live for and look forward to!
So—how about that Kingdom of Jerusalem by the way? As we understand it, there is irrefutable archaeological and written evidence that the Kingdom of Jerusalem did in fact exist for some two centuries in what is now the geographical and geological area of debate. Wasn’t that a primarily French Christian kingdom? So, perhaps it isn’t the Israelis or the Palestinians who should control the area in question—but rather the French…or the Christians. What does the Pope have to say about all of this, we sometimes wonder.
And within that context, let’s not forget the really important question for the American taxpayer who foots the bill decade after decade after stormy decade, “Religion aside—what is so damned critical about a tiny chunk of mostly arid and barren, natural-resource-absent land in the southwest corner of SW Asia anyway?” The only answer we can think of is that it is a politically and financially supported (by the American taxpayer) Jewish foothold that would easily facilitate a future invasion of that part of the world—should there ever be a world war type confrontation between West and East…between Christian and Muslim. From that point of view, it reminds us of the beach at Normandy where the greatest naval armada in world history once debarked the greatest land invasion in global history.
On the other hand, perhaps the Israeli-Palestinian issue should be based on the question, “Who can be proved to have been there first?”
We understand that archaeological evidence says that the area in question was first Canaan—and not Judah (the latter purported to be the present day West Bank and Jerusalem, incidentally)…nor Israel…nor Palestine.
But then, how far back is far enough?
As a people (or some say as a race), the Canaanites became extinct long, long ago. Likewise, the Israelites ceased to exist as well. And being objective about this whole issue—it is extremely doubtful that direct descendants of those long ago residents of the “Land of Canaan” can be found today. And even if they could be found, what of it, i.e., what difference would it make?
We read recently that even after decades of archaeological effort, there is no hard evidence that the “House of David” existed (except for a couple of “words” engraved on a single piece of rock). Yet he is spoken of by his believers, as if there was never any doubt as to his existence. And what then of “King Solomon”?
On the other hand, there is an overabundance of rock reflecting an overabundance of “words” attesting to Egyptian pharaohs…and even to Mayans for that matter.
Well, NG is free to say anything he wants and maybe it will win points with fundamentalists. But, if he says that the post Roman occupation people need a homeland, no one is going to know what he is talking about.
To my mind, maybe because I’m an American, and I like the idea of a melting pot, or at least a melding pot, it seems that a One-State Solution is the best way forward. What other alternative is there at this point? It doesn’t seem like there is one that can be crafted knowing the “situation on the ground”; and the option of pushing the Palestinians off their remaining land/area seems untenable to most.
I know, there is the “concern” about birth rates, demographics, etc. in one larger state, but isn’t that an admission of “racism” to some extent? Or maybe there is a fear for some that the Arabs will be racist. If not racist, is it an admission that our belief in “democracy” or a “bill of rights (for all) is not the way forward? I bet Arabs would vote for Jewish leaders who could/will provide jobs & stability (which is all most sane people want anyways). Let’s do the best we can now, and let the next generation figure out and continue what we are striving for. Hasn’t science fairly well shown that the word “race” at this late date is a fairly contrived term?
Though, at the end of the day it is quite complicated as Israel is a very small country in the middle of a majority of Muslim neighbors? Obviously, other countries in the region should be expected to adopt a “bill of rights” to protect all of “their citizens” as well.
Just a few points . . . .
1. Sorry, Brux, but you’re full wrong, on all counts, and your statements and observations suggest strongly that you have not studied the matters at hand very closely . . . “as Michelle Bachman pointed out . . . . “? Gingrich ” . . . has a valid point“? No, he does not, and Bachman is a goddamn idiot. My God, are you serious? “Peace partner?” That’s the hoariest, worst bullshit ever: The Israelis (some of them; you obviously don’t know this, but there is massive disagreement in Israel about their collective future ) want the status quo of endless strife and occupation and mayhem whilst they continue with the building of settlements, which then become “facts on the ground.” Please don’t construe this as an “either/or” lament–I think the above two lying lunatics are simply dumbing down the significance of what’s going on, but certainly the “liberal” point is often bad (contrary to what you might think, Mr. Obama simply sucks up to Israel as well)–we Americans simply can’t talk straight about Israel, and this serves the right-wing status quo about Israel.
2. A nice post, DWV, but actually the Right Of Return for Palestinians is a big issue–there was a good article in last month’s Harper’s magazine. I won’t go into it here, but the historical facts are quite clear, and these events occured not that long ago. The Right Of Return has been blown way out of proportion by certain actors, and needs to be discussed rationally–but it won’t be, and I suspect Harper’s mailbag will be chock full of hysterical ravings next month. And so it goes.
3. You are so right, gloriana: “Sorry too, Brux, but once you frame any argument into “them” and “us,” there really is no more conversation, nor any peace either.
” … blanket support for Islam/Arabs or blanket hatred of the Jews.”
Opposition to Israel’s methods of dealing with the Palestinian problem is not the same as hatred of the Jews. Nor is support for the Palestinian right of self-determination blanket support for Islam/Arabs. There are a lot of messy Arab dictatorships, Saudi Arabia being a prime example, which do not need supporting, and a rather large percentage of today’s Muslims are not Arabs. Ask anyone from Pakistan, for example.
Tim, you make a lot of noise and front a lot of opinions, but I see no facts, no logical sequence to back you up. You have one typical type of post that I see and it seems to ring untrue, whereas at least Thomas above expains where he is coming from which I can respect, but cannot agree with.
A one-state solution is what the Palestinians want, meaning that the Jews either leave of live under the farcical idea of of democracy when the vast majority are radical Islamic Palestinians who breed much faster than the Jews.
The criterion I like to challenge people with is to look at the real facts.
1. These people cannot and do not want to get along, let’s refrain from setting blame for this in the interests of looking for a solution, or at least a rational basis for solving the problem.
2. The problem is that the Jews, nor any other minority in Islamicly dominated lands cannot live lives where they have equal rights, so they need their own lands. Same in India, same everywhere else. The problem here is global – and it is the rule of any land and its people by one religion – is inimical to freedom and human rights. So, any minority that so desires in my mind has a universal right to separate from such a government and seek independence.
3. In seeking independence, how should land and resources be divided up fairly. Two precedents have already shown the impossiblilty of the situation. The Palestinians being terrorized to leave Israel way back, and the same was true in the surrounding Islamic lands who kicked out Jews and forced them to go to Israel and confiscated their land and wealth. Two wrong that might be seen to cancel out each other on a global scale but which can hardly be solved on a personal or national level between Islamics and Israel.
4. What might be a practical basis for looking at this? OK … take the number of people per square mile of land in all the middle east, and look at how much land each person should get mathematically calculated, if everything was divided equally. Then compute how large Israel would be if every Israeli got this much land.
I think the state of Israel is much much smaller and more compact and dense than it would be if the land was really divided equally. So, in order to escape Islamic repression/oppression, Israelis have settled for a much smaller state than they would get representatively if this was done fairly.
To me that is the issue in a nutshell. The Palestinians are merely the Islamics way of attacking Israel and Jews back for daring to demand their independence and equal rights.
Brux, you really take my breath away.
I’ll address just one point and leave the rest to others. “The vast majority are radical Islamic Palestinians who breed much faster than the Jews.” I don’t think you know very much about the Palestinians at all if you believe that “the vast majority” (what would that be? 80%? 90%?) are radical and “Islamic”. Have you ever met any Palestinians? Do you read any of their media?
I wonder if you have even been to Israel/Palestine. If you had, you might be aware that the largest families tend to be those of the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Read this article, for example: http://bit.ly/rTtO6 (But actually 11 children is not that many. Many Haredi have 18, 20 children.)
Two linguistic points. “Haredi” means “God-fearing”. Imagine how scary that would sound to you if it was an Arabic word, not a Hebrew one!
And then your choice of the word “breed”… If I had said that the Haredi breed faster than anyone else in the Middle East, I expect you would accuse me of anti-Semitism. It’s a deliberately disparaging word, isn’t it â┚¬“ suggesting that humans are no more than rabbits, or maybe cockroaches?
Alhazred DeSane Says:
> Opposition to Israel’s methods of dealing with the Palestinian
> problem is not the same as hatred of the Jews.
That is a semi-meaningless statement … yes, it does not have to be the same as hatred of Jews. But again … then what is it? In the absence of measurement or polls I can claim it is, you can claim it isn’t – so where do we go for an answer? The bottom line is that the eminity between the Jews and the Palestinians is a long standing historical one. When it comes to Jews the Palestinians are a hate factory, and well paid.
Do you dispute that Palestinian textbooks and religious instruction teach Palestinians to hate Israelis? I believe this is true because I have heard it and read it in multiple sources.
I am sure many Israelis are prejudiced against Palestinians, but I see no evidence that the magnitude of that is anywhere near equal on both sides. Palestinians live in Israel, Jews do not and cannot and will not be allowed to live in a Palestinian state.
This absurd double standard based on the belligerent interpretation of the Islamic religion should not really garner any respect or weight, human rights is what is important – and to get human rights a people should not engage in terrorism or crimes.
Is it the same thing as hate to say that Allah states Jews are not human? That Jews should not be treated equally in Muslim countries. That even expressing the idea for discussion is again God’s law? This whole thing, the right and the wrong of it is simple.
The complexity comes in that this is war, and the pretense is that there is a peace process going on. I like this to come kids in the backseat of a car. One of the kids keeps hitting another and then stopping when the parent looks and pretends to be the same as the other kid. The other kid defends themselves and retaliates, but does is not liked so some of the other kids defend the kid that is their same religion, preventing the breakout of real hostilities, but maintaining constant pressure on the bullied kid so they never feel comfortable.
What Islamics are doing to the Jews, to other minorities, to themselves, and to human rights by virtue of their religion is not going to be doable in the modern world without force, deceit, terrorism ,etc.
Brux, I can’t resist adding that I notice that the area of the United States and the area of Canada are almost exactly the same â┚¬“ and yet the US population is 10 times as big! I suggest that the whole territory of North America should be reallocated, on an equitable per capita basis.
Oh, but hang on! Mexico is part of North America, too. So, their population has to be added into the mix. By my quick calculations, in the interests of fairness, 175 million US people need to move north into Canada, to make room for 72 million Mexicans. Then everybody would be happy! Especially the Mexicans, because they would get California and Texas…
Huw,
I’d stipulate that the ultra-orthodox anyone are on a par with the radical Muslims, but they do not control Israel, they are not the majority – I hope they do not become the majority. It is just plain harder to institutionalize hate in Israel than it is in “Palestine”. I see no cues to indicate that you are anti-semitic, you just disagree with me – I can handle that.
Brux, I’ve been thinking further about your remarks. Of course, though you may read a lot about the Middle East, I don’t know what your sources are or how wide a range of opinion or information they present. Are you aware, for example, that (whether or not they *hate* Arabs) many Israelis certainly feel a lot of contempt for them? Are you aware that both Jewish settlers and IDF soldiers frequently scrawl slogans like “Kill all Arabs” on the walls of Palestinians houses â┚¬“ in the case of the IDF, on the inside walls? Are you aware that many students at Israeli schools and yeshivas (the religious academies) express extreme hatred for Arabs?
It seems to me, though, that you are assuming a false equivalence. Israelis and Palestinians are not on an equal footing, any more than the wife-beater and his wife are. Would it be any surprise if the woman hated the man for beating her? Would you then cite that hatred as justification for the man continuing to beat her? “Look, she needs to be disciplined â┚¬“ otherwise, who knows what she might do to him?”
Try a thought experiment: would you blame the French in 1941 for hating the Germans who occupied their country? Even for hating the Germans more than the Germans hated them? Now suppose that France was never liberated by the British/Canadians/Americans, and 44 years later the Germans were still there. Would you blame the French for hating them? Most of the French would not even have been born when the Germans invaded, and all they would know would be unending German occupation. Would you expect the French to be cheerfully submissive?
Now imagine that the Germans were doing something that, in fact, they never did do: stealing French land, stealing the water (80-90% of the West Bank’s water is taken by the Israelis), deliberately destroying ancient French orchards (or, worse, digging the trees up and taking them back to Berlin to sell to rich Germans), bulldozing French houses, arresting French children in the middle of the night (most male Palestinians, including most boys, have been arrested at least once by the Israelis).
Imagine that tens of millions of Germans had already moved into France as colonists, and that Berlin was offering large financial incentives to anyone else who would join them. Imagine, indeed, that Berlin was inviting anyone of German descent in the United States to come and settle â┚¬“ not in Germany but in France. Imagine that the Germans had built 27-foot-high concrete walls across France, and crisscrossed the country with roads that the French were forbidden to use. Imagine that French people driving on their own roads found themselves being sniped at by German colonists. Imagine that the German Tourist Board published maps showing France as part of Greater Germany.
Imagine that, 16 years into the occupation, the head of the German armed forces had said, “The French have no right to live on even one inch of Greater Germany. … Force is all they understand, and ever will. We shall use extreme force until the French come crawling to us on all fours.â┚¬Ã‚ And that the very next day he had said, “â┚¬Ã…“When we have colonised [France], all the French will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.â┚¬Ã‚ Imagine that one of his successors had referred to the French â┚¬“ not the Resistance, but French people in general â┚¬“ as “a cancer”.
Imagine that for 44 years the Germans had been assuring the world that they wanted nothing more than peace with their neighbours and an independent, autonomous French state. Only, that state would be just the rump of the land the French used to own â┚¬“ mostly the poorer land, with very little water â┚¬“ and this independent, autonomous state would not be allowed control of its borders or its airspace, would not be allowed a defence forceâ┚¬Ã‚¦ And imagine that the Germans had managed to convince Washington and London, CNN and the BBC that indeed *they* were the peace-loving victims of all this, and if only the French would renounce violence and hatred and learn to live with other civilised folkâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Would you really be surprised if, under those circumstances, after 44 years, the French didn’t hate their occupiers? In fact, I suspect that you wouldn’t really respect the French if they didn’t try to fight back. I believe that the historical French Resistance is generally admired in the West, even after a few years of quite lenient occupation. The Germans called the French Resistance “terrorists”, but that is not how most of us now think of them.
And yet the remarkable thing is that many people who visit the West Bank report that most Palestinians do *not* harbour any great hatred for Israelis. Opinion polls there repeatedly find that most Palestinians want some kind of peaceful and just settlement. Even in Gaza, “the world’s largest prison”, people express anger to the foreign media, but not hatred.
Finally, Brux, I would urge you to watch this performance by a young Palestinian poet: http://youtu.be/aKucPh9xHtM
Whenever we get involved in a discussion of Israel, it seems to me that we end up with a never-ending discussion of who did what to whom and who was there first.
Israel is free to choose what they want to do but as an American, what I want is for a Middle East policy made in the USA and not made by AIPAC and not by Tel Aviv. In my opinion, we have a policy that is not serving the interests of America, nor does it serve the interests of those Israelis who have tried so hard to create a secure country, nor does it serve the interests of the Palestinians who have suffered, too, for a nation of their own.
America can no longer be an honest broker. In virtually every dispute, we have taken Israel’s side and, of course, to say that will label me, by some, as an anti-Semite which is the card played by neoconservatives to shut down all honest discussion.
Israel can either continue with one crisis after another or both Israel and Palestine can work towards a real roadmap to compromise and peace.
Dear Brux – You may wish to google the Israeli Newspaper “Ha’aretz” and read what some Israelis
are saying about the issues they face. Not everyone loves and believes in Bibi. You will no doubt call them self-hating Jews. However, they do know their own history and have a deep understanding of what is going on in their own area.
A few things you really don’t know about color your statements. Several posters have given you information that should be helpful. You might be interested in reading Mark Braverman’s “Fatal Embrace,” check out Anna Baltzer’s writings and read commentary from several other Jews who have chosen to explore this topic in depth, on the ground and by venturing into the occupied territories.
You will find among them a curiousity about and search for understanding of the situation that surpasses the popular US press. Dr. Braverman was advised by his Israeli relatives NOT to go to the “territories” for fear that he would be harmed or killed. Dr. B. went anyway and was amazed to find that no one cared that he was Jewish, he was treated kindly and people were glad to have a conversation. In other words, he was embraced with the hospitality that the Middle East of Christians, Jews and Arabs has always been famous – something we tend either not to know or disregard in order to support our own prejudices.
It would be helpful to you and the Republican hopefuls if you all would expand your knowledge
of the area, the history and the people. Neither side wears a white hat, however, most of the power lies with the Israelis and the US gives them disproportional support with tax payer dollars. Personally, I object to my money being used in this way.
Fantastic viewpoints Brux.Very little to disagree with in your basic understanding of the problem.I think you will find on this sight a basic belief that Israel is a criminal nation that never really had the right to exist.They are basically seen as the culprit,and most here believe they deserve whatever they get.There is a DEEP- deep understanding for every Arab point of contention,but almost nothing for Israeli concerns.You are not talking to people with a driving hope for Israeli safety and security .You are dealing with those who have an ax to grind with the Jewish state.Arab hatred is seen as “understandable”.
Read the minutes of Hitlers last days in the bunker.He was begged by his aid to escape to Arab countries or Argentina.Places that applauded his destruction of the Jewish people,and helped toward these aims.Hitler decided to stay and die.But the point is- this hatred predated any Jewish state.In a strange way the creation of Israel was the worlds answer to that hatred.
I have seen those who try to prove Jews never lived in the holy land.The argument is empty and in the end inconsequential .Israel is.That certain Arab sentiments will fight for an eternity against this fact is the only reason Israel needs to defend herself.WE …stand with the Jewish state that wept with us on 911,as the streets of Palestine erupted in joyous celebration.Two Democracies in a hornets nest.
michael e, “in a strange way the creation of Israel was the worlds answer to that hatred”? Golly! So the sensible answer to the Arabs’ supposed hatred of Jews was to commandeer a slab of their land, surrounded by Arab populations on all sides, and give it to the Jews â┚¬“ as what exactly? A safe haven? A place where they could be far more secure than they could ever be in the US, say, or Britain? Today, 39% of the world’s Jews live in your country, while 42.5% live in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.
It’s interesting to examine who you are referring to when you say “the world”. When the UN voted to partition British Mandate Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs who then lived there, it had only 56 members. A two-thirds majority of votes cast was required to pass the motion. Ten countries abstained, including my own, Britain. According to Wikipedia (which in this case I think is trustworthy, in that both sides of the argument are very active in correcting any perceived errors), “a telegram signed by 26 US senators with influence on foreign-aid bills was sent to wavering countries, seeking their support for the partition plan. Many nations reported pressure directed specifically at them. President Truman later noted, ‘The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders â┚¬Ã‚¦ disturbed and annoyed me.’ [The] Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless ‘she voted right’.” The 33 states that finally voted in favour of partition included such powerful, independent countries as Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and the Philippines. Five states in the Soviet bloc voted in favour, probably because the kibbutz movement at the time led Stalin to think that the new state would lean towards communism. Perhaps he also saw it as a place to which he could encourage Soviet Jews to emigrate. India voted against, as did Greece and Turkey. China abstained.
Of course, it has gone done in received wisdom in the West that after the war, such was the revulsion over the Holocaust, “the whole world” â┚¬“ except for the hate-filled Arabs, of course â┚¬“ readily agreed to give 55% of BM Palestine to the Jews (many of them recent immigrants) who by then made up 33% of its population. But if you look at the facts, you will see that that is not actually what happened.
Incidentally, if the aim of creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East was really “in a strange way â┚¬Ã‚¦ the world’s answer” to the Arabs’ supposed hatred of Jews, wouldn’t it have been ever more appropriate â┚¬“ “in a strange way”, of course â┚¬“ to carve out a slab of Germany, Austria and Poland for a Jewish homeland? Alternatively, if the aim was to give the Jews a home where they would be safe from all danger, what a pity the US didn’t think of giving them, say, the state of Montana! No doubt the people who already lived there would gladly have made room for them. Don’t you think?
Palestinians deserve to be recognized as a “people” with statehood by the United Nations. I am outraged with my country for opposing that! They have been unjustly treated for many years–decades! Justice must be served for both Palestinians and Israelis.
Elizabeth makes some valid points. However, I would urge that she not rely on the Bible for facts. As for Brux, he leaves himself open to ridicule by believing anything Ms. Bachman has to say about facts. She is not the brightest star on the horizon of intelligence. As for Palestinian children being “brainwashed”, these children don’t need to be brainwashed, they experience and suffer daily the brutal Israeli occupation; they experience death, torture, humiliation, bulldozing of their homes, etc. I can’t blame Brux for being confused, our news media does its utmost to never talk truthfully (if they talk about it at all) about Palestine or the Israeli occupation, thus keeping the American public totally ignorant on this issue. Luckily, there are some thoughtful people as can be seen here who do take the trouble to find out the truth by consulting the many legitimate and scholarly sources available. Those interested, check out a book by Basem L. Ra’ad “Hidden Histories – Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean” available on-line from AMEU, whose findings challenge what we in the West think we know about the history of Palestine.
Elizabeth, I understand that there is “democratic” diversity in the way Israelis view their situation … that is rather the point, not the problem. There may be a right and a wrong, but they are arriving at it in an open way. The Palestinians on the other hand shoot people they thing oppose their drive Israel into the sea policy. As far as I understand it is still for so many years the policy of the the Palestinian representatives to destroy Israel. You really do not feel the least bit funny expecting Israel to just go forth into negotiations or put themselves in a position of vulnerability in relationship to a group that wants to see them gone, that is also backed by other pretty nasty countries, Iran & Syria for example that also call the existence of Israel an abomination?
Really?
Huw, you post starts out basically arguing for the superiority of your authority based on questioning mine by asking some pretty simplistic and one-sided pointed questions. I said I have no problem with you having an honest disagreement with me and a different opinion, but when for example you spend your first paragraph talking one-sided stuff about how Israeli soldiers scrawl things on the wall that are anti-Palestinian, as if to tip the scale by NOT mentioning anything on the other side … like FIRING MISSILES ON A DAILY BASIS, then I question your objectivity and your honesty.
Then, you write many paragraphs that all basically have the same slant, they are all anti-Israeli, with no reference as to why Israelis may feel or behave that way, and no mention of what happens on the other side.
How gullible do you think peolpe really are? I just feel insulted and amazed that you would try to pull this stuff and pretend to be having a reasoned and objective discussion with me. This is exactly what I meant in my first post here, your extreme bias just explodes out from your writing.
One rhetorical trick the Palestinian side uses to try to gain sympathty or status is to use false comparisons which imply both sides in this conflict are equal. A bit like a parent coming into the room with two kids who have been fighting and trying to figure out who started it. You tell your version of history, and of course since it is history I must be wrong to reject or modify it, but really it is just another of your interpretations, and honestly given your bias earlier, I don’t accept it.
As time goes on there are things that operate in favor of either side. One thing is that radical Islam gets closer to the possible development and deployment of nuclear weapons. Another is the birth rate or the Palestinians which has been astounding. You want to say I am biased to bring up birth rates at all, but put the curves together of both sides and you can see the rapid rise in Palestinian population – and that combined with their demand for the right of return demonstrates yet again they mean to destroy Israel. Any goal of a country is secondary to that primary objective of destruction. What would you suggest Israel do faced with this?
Laila, if you can read and comprehend, I did not say I believed everything that Bachman has to say, in fact I am not a Republican or interested in voting Republican, which I specifially mentioned. Does that mean to you that I am obligated to oppose and froth at the mouth at every single thing any of them say? I don’t think so. I merely said that when Bachman was talking about Palestinian textbooks, and the anti-semitic institutionalization of their culture, she had a point that she can back of with evidence. I have also heard this point made and proven elsewhere. So, you want me to ignore that because someone I am not going to support or vote for as President said it? I think it’s you that is absurd, ridiculous, unable to be objective or reasonable, and I don’t appreciate your illogical and groundless attacks. Please attack me on logical grounds, OK?
Huw:
> So the sensible answer to the Arabs’ supposed hatred of Jews was to commandeer a slab of their land
Their land?
Do you see it now … your extreme bias on this issue? Two peoples, at least, even more if you include smaller minorities such as Christians and others lived in this area. Why is this “their” land?
In terms of the modern nation/state view, this land was in an indeterminate state, having been part of the previous Turkish/Ottoman empire, but I think there is little to gained by arguing about history at this point, lets about the human factors … bottom line, what do you suggest, where do you think it will lead?
I believe the only thing that will lead away from war and to peace is the institutional change of Islamic culture, particularly the religious state, which in this world of increasing diversity and democracy is “intolerance” that cannot be tolerated. I don’t believe the US is a Christian nation except in some kind of traditional way – and I do not think that going forward into the future Islam can coexist with the rest of the world peacefully as long as it controls government in a discriminatory, intolerant, repressive, and militarstic terroristic way. The Israel/Palestinian struggle I see in this context. Please, without writing a novel, explain briefly why you think I am wrong?
By the way Huw,
>> “the whole world” â┚¬“ except for the hate-filled Arabs, of course â┚¬“ readily agreed to give 55% of BM Palestine to the Jews (many of them recent immigrants) who by then made up 33% of its population. But if you look at the facts, you will see that that is not actually what happened.
If you are fan of history, then you understand that the Arab could very well be called hate-filled, though I do not call them hate filled. But most of the countries in the Middle East sided with the Third Reich or tried to during WWII. The implication of your writings by leaving this fact out is that the Arabs/Persians were neutral, but over the last centuries they have not been neutral towards their minorities, they have been very intolerant and abusive. Why do you think the Kurds want independence, and why do you think the Muslims do not want to see that happen.
Any group gaining independence is a precedent for any other group to stand up for itself and to demand its rights. If this happens in one place, over time it will ripple through the entire Islamic world and all the minorities that resent being second class citizens might eventually express their discontent.
You might look up the history of the Grand Mufti of Jeruslam, Haj Amin Al-Hussayni … not sure I am spelling that right. He spend the war residing in a luxury accomodations provided by the Third Reich in return for acting as a propagandist and planning a final solution for the Jews of the Middle East. Do you know what I am talking about or not?
Oh my, oh my. Brux, is it that you have been brain washed? Sorry, but I don’t know what else to call it. Perfectly reasonable discussions by intelligent people are disgarded by you as simply false because they don’t fall into line with your belief system.
Here are some books that may enlighten you, should you choose to open your mind to them. Here’s my list:
A Threat from Within: A century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism – Yakov M. Rabkin
The Lobby – Edward Tivnan
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine – Illan Pappe (may have misspelled Illan)
The Bible – I returned to this source as there are many excellent things in it and it is referenced by Rabkin and others in order to understand how a large number of people understand the history of the Hebrew peoples. It is mostly mythic, but since it lays the ground work for much of the trouble, it should be considered.
There are, of course, many other resources. One of the interesting things I have found is that the time period in which a book or paper was written has great bearing on how the “facts” are presented. Brux, you obviously prefer blind hatred of “the other” rather than understanding and acceptance of our differences. I pitty you for that. It is the stuff of nationalism and the subsequent wars that nationalism breeds. I understand that Hitler, among others, was devoted to the Nationalism of the Aryan Nation. The dilemmas many of us face is how to differentiate between Zionism, Judiasm and a variety of sects representing both extremes. Very similar to the dilemmas many face when trying to sort out the ever growing variety of Christian Religions. One cannot simply posit that “all Jews are bad” or “all Christians are good” or “all Islamists are terroriest” or whatever. As you know, none of those statements is true. One always has to determine which brand of which is what and then you can never be sure at exactly what point any given group will “go bad” on you.
Perhaps the late Chris Hitchens was right on all counts. Who was it that declared religion to be the opiate of the masses? We all know that too much of any drug can be very, very dangerous.
For a more complete list of “very basic suggested reading…on the Middle East” check out
http//www.juancole.com/books-on-mideast
Elizabeth….The majority of so called palestinian lands are in arab countries.87%.Israel has about 7%.Maybe it is time the united nations demand they(Arab countries) give up their lands to the Palestinians.Sorry Im laughing ……..along with those Arab countries.What a hoot.Can you believe some boobs have bought into the idea that only the Israelis should give of their little spit of land?And every time they have…..they have been immediately attacked from that land.Ya just can’t dream up this level of stupidity.
Michael – You need to read some of the books I recommended plus the UN agreement on the partition of Palestine. There are maps you need to see that can be found in the World Book and many other places. Idiologues don’t care to look at these because it clearly refutes their mythology. In 1946 most of the land was designated Palestinian. Only lands that had been purchased by Eastern European Jews were designated Israeli. If you recall, about that time, the Irgun and some other terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jeruselum and the Brits decided to call it a day. In 1947 the UN offered a plan to divide the land in the most pecular sections, none contiguous for either group. From 1949-1967 the Palestinian lands had been reduced to two seperate sections, the Palestinians having lost a northern segment and a considerable strip along the Egyptian border. The current lands are the now considerably smaller Gaza Strip and several Bantustans in the West Bank. Seeing this in a series of maps is enlightening, should you care to be enlightened. Check out any or all of the following: independentjewishvoices.ca calaweb.org connesxions.org (click: Palestine/Israel and http://www.nion.ca)
It will not break your computer to look for these.
“We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them. We’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlement in between the Palestinians, and another strip of Jewish settlement, right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time neither the UN nor the US, nobody will be able to tear it apart.” Ariel Sharon, 1973
Nice guy, Sharon. Remember Sabra and Shitilla? So far they are close, but not quite. The Palestinians have amazing tenacity and the world is listening. Meanwhile, you and your ilk have the idea that anyone who speaks Arabic must be the same as any other Arabic speaker, even though many who speak Egyptian Arabic cannot understand those who speak Syrian Arabic. I learned some Jordanian Arabic and could not be understood in Egypt. I thought is was me until a Jordanian came forward and understood me. So I asked if they thought of themselves as Arabs or Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, etc. Noone anwered Arab. Enough said.
We can go from the beginning. Though it has basically no bearing on current events i would like to correct one extremely widely believed factual error. The UN did NOT partition Israel and Palestine. It is a widely held myth that keeps being perpetuated but has no basis in fact. True, there was a vote in General assembly about partitioning Palestine but if anyone ever bothered to actually read the text of the resolution 181 they would come upon this:
“The General Assemblyâ┚¬Ã‚¦.
RECOMMENDS (emphasis mine) to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;
Requests that
(a) The Security Council take the necessary measure as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
(b) The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists …”
Please read the damn thing. General assembly does not and never did have the power to partition anything, therefore what they did was to RECOMMEND to Security council to do this. The security council subsequently discussed the issue but could not get around the idea that the proposal violates the basic charter of the UN because it denies the Palestinian population the right of self determination also the SC does not have the power to partition anything either as they themselves point out. The proposal died in the security council and no vote was taken in SC on the issue. On may 14, 1948, Israel unilaterally declared itself a state and cited resolution 181 as recognizing it.
However the issue about the US is nowadays entirely moot. Israel had occupied a part of Palestine in 1948 that they thought they could politically defend in the international community and they were successful in that regard. However the plan was to take the entire area of Palestine from Jordan to the sea and Israels expansion continued in fits and starts, gains and losses of territory from them. The only constant was that the amount of territory left to the Palestinians is steadily diminishing.
Now lets turn to the present. People wring their hands as you can see in previous posts about what Israelis think of Palestinians or what Palestinians think about Israelis. All this travail is completely inconsequential. To pretend one can take only Palestinian or Israeli side and that both sides are unreasonable is simply not true. There is the third side. Namely the side of international law. And if you look at what international law has to say about it then it is completely uncontroversial and clear cut.
(Let me illustrate by example how the law operates that is different from us vs. them approach that is so common. Say there are two neighbours and then one day one neighbour A takes over half the garden and part of the house of the person B. The law does not care if person B said nasty things about or to person A, the law does not care if person B threw a bottle in person A garden injuring his spouse. The law does not care because it is irrelevant in a territorial dispute. The law might think that person B should go to jail for injuring his spouse but it does not give person A the right to take person B’s property.)
So what does law have to say about the Israeli occupation of Palestine?
First of all it is completely uncontroversial that Israel is occupying Palestine. NO legal body anywhere including Israeli high court disputes this.
Previous agreements between Palestinians and Israelis have already agreed that Israel is entitled to have a state in 1967 borders.
Any Israeli living outside of 1967 borders is there illegaly as was found by the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice.
The parts of the wall built to protect the illegal settlers is illegal. As affirmed by ICJ.
East Jerusalem is Palestinian. As affirmed by ICJ.
Right of return applies. As affirmed by ICJ.
Any actions on both sides that target civilians are illegal and in Israeli case are war crimes (This is because War crimes can only be commited by states and Palestine is not a state so it cannot commit war crimes, groups within it may commit crimes against humanity though but no international judicial body judged either Israel or Palestinian groups on either first or second manner of violating the law.) Affirmed by ICJ when it judged that Geneva accords and other international customary law applies.
This is what law says. So how to resolve it? In short, what we have is one country occupying another country, illegaly transfering its own population to the occupied territory and carrying out acts of violence or a regular basis. The occupied country has an ongoing very low level resistance to the occupation that sometimes commits violent acts. The ratio of violence is in the range of 50:1 only counting the casualties, where Israel is the bigger actor. Damage of property ratio is hugely larger because only Israeli side carries it out.
I would suggest that we deal with the crimes commited by both sides in the order of magnitude of the crimes, ending the big crimes first and then proceeding to end the smaller and smaller ones until normal relations between states take place.
First step in that effort would be to pressure Israel to cease the occupation (this is the biggest crime in the conflict, crime of agression, the supreme international crime (in the words of the Nurenberg tribunal which established international law in affairs of states)) and establish a sovereign Palestinian state.
Second step would be redressing the grievances of the victims of said agression. This includes reparations for decades of occupation and disposession and redress of grievances of the ethnically cleansed parts of the Palestinian population.
Third step would be assuring that neither side violates the sovereignty of the other state with peacekeeping forces if need be.
Presto!
Now why doesn’t this simple solution happen even though it is crystal clear from the legal standpoint? Frankly, it doesn’t happen because the Palestinian side in the conflict has no power to force Israel to adhere to the law and the US is willing to make it impossible for the international community (the vast majority of which supports the general tenets of the solution i just outlined) to enforce the law. Therefore Israel remains the major violator of international law and that will not change until the US permits international law to be enforced.
All the debates about how Palestinians hate Israelis or Israelis hate Palestinians and what one side writes in their textbooks or on the walls of other sides homes are completely irrelevant. Even if every act of vandalism and brainwashing and intimidation were true, it is still insignificant compared to the massive, ongoing crimes of occupation (the supreme international crime) and the violence from both sides that the occupation evokes (though Israeli side, unsuprisingly, given the balance of forces, carries out far more violence than the Palestinian resistance). All these discussions are merely distraction tactics whose goal it is for everyone to focus on small and sporadic little dots of injustice and ignore the huge black blob of the occupation on the parchment of the story of the conflict.
Bravo. It’s my understanding that when Israel declared itself a state, with the full backing of the US and most of the UN, they accepted Resolution 181 vis a vis borders. They also agreed to write a constitution and declare borders within one year. As you know, they moved in aggressively and did not stop at the presumed declared borders but kept moving eastward. The Jordanian forces were trying to hold the line at what they believed were declared borders, however, the Israeli forces were much stronger. So begins the mess they are in today. To date there is no constitution nor are there definitive borders according to the Israelis.
You are correct in your analysis and right on concerning the US part in all this. Anywhere else would have had a UN Peace Keeping force on the borders (whatever they might be), however, the Palestinians agreed to this but the Isrealis refused for what should be obvious reasons.
The Likud Party platform declares that the State of Israel should include all the land West of the Jordan River. Incursions into Lebanon are, in my opinion, efforts to secure the waters of the Litani River as well. Eastern Europeans have no understanding of what it takes to live in a desert and rather than adjust they prefer to acquisition more water.
Sadly, this entire mess has made millions of people very unhappy and endangered the entire world.
I just listened to a lot of legal arguments from MATIC… with Elizabeth agreeing whole heartedly.Take it for granted that Israel agrees with your interpretations(they don’t.)….You forgot the key element that threw all this in the hopper ,and created the reality we now live with.Israel was attacked by massed Arab armies more than once aimed at her destruction.What think you would of been the Jewish states fate if she had lost?Couple that with a terrorist campaign lasting till present, and the primary Israeli concern is security.Now I ask you plainly.What would you two create as Israeli national boarders?Boarders to be honored and kept secured?And two….Should the majority of so called Palestinian historic lands be turned back over to her, by Syria,Jordan,Egypt,and the other Arab Powers who hold that land as part of your plan?And lastly do you two see such scenarios as solidifying Israeli security ,or is it simply “thee” nail in her coffin that will destroy this criminal nation?Lastly ….Do you even give a damn(About Israel I mean)?
Bravo indeed, Matic. That was very well put indeed.
Since you (implicitly, but reasonably) criticise my posts, let me just say that yes, I was allowing myself to be distracted from the main issue by trying to respond to Brux’s old chestnuts.
Elizabeth, I just want to underline the point that when you say “most of the UN”, you should qualify that: “most of the then members of the UN”. The UN now has over three times as many members as it did then. Only 33 members of the General Assembly voted to (as Matic says) recommend partition to the Security Council, and many of those were small, weak states in what the US likes to call its back yard. (Wikipedia provides a succinct account of how the Philippines’ vote was cast: “In the days before the vote, the Philippines’ representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated: ‘We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility.’ After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines’ vote changed.”) The “history” that “the world agreed” that there should be a state of Israel is far from the truth.
Brux: I think it is probably futile trying to argue with you, butâ┚¬Ã‚¦ I asked you if you were aware that Israeli soldiers and students scrawl “Death to Arabs” because you asked us if we were aware that Palestinians are taught to hate Israelis. It seems perverse, frankly, that you accuse me of being one-sided when I was simply trying to counterbalance your one-sided view.
Re the Kurds: perhaps you are not aware that most Kurds are Muslims. They want their independence for the same reason that almost every distinct nation/culture wants its independence (just as many people in Scotland and Quebec today want independence). They are, I believe, the largest nation in the world not to have their own state. The historic reason they don’t, I believe, is because my country, Britain, drew the lines on the map when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and we did so without much regard for the wishes of the great mass of people who lived there.
Re the Grand Mufti: you need to read up on him a little more. He was appointed, IIRC, by the British. I doubt that we chose him because we thought he was a good Muslim, or even a good man. Like the Roman-appointed Caiaphas in the days of Jesus, I don’t think anyone would see him as representative of popular local opinion. As to why he sucked up to the Nazis, have you perhaps heard of the principle that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”? It was, after all, on exactly that principle that Britain and (later) the US armed and supplied the Soviet Union during the war, even though Churchill was to say that he would as soon have gone to war against Stalin with Hitler as his ally as the other way round. In other words, you don’t generally choose your allies on the basis of whether you like their politics. All that said, I can’t see any evidence here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/WWII.png that “most of the countries in the Middle East sided with the Third Reich or tried to.” Perhaps you could give us some references to substantiate that rather airy claim?
Re “stealing a slab of their land”: fair point â┚¬“ I was using a lazy shorthand. The people of Palestine are, of course, a multiethnic, multicultural mix of Arabs, Armenians, Jews and all sorts, and of Muslims, Christians and Jews. I guess it would take quite a lot of research to establish how much of the land that was allocated to/appropriated by the new state of Israel in 1948 was actually owned by indigenous Arabs, how much by indigenous Armenians &c &c. The main point is that not much of it was owned by indigenous Jews. And taking land from families who have lived on it and cultivated it for generations (and, in many cases, centuries) and giving it to recent immigrants and people who have not even immigrated yet is not exactly calculated to create peace, love and harmony, I would suggest.
Sorry, on that map of how the world split in the Second World War, the states coloured blue sided with the Axis powers and those coloured green sided with the Allies. Those coloured light green came into the war at the end of 1941 or later. I see that the then Shah of Iran was inclined towards the Axis Powers â┚¬“ I would imagine, because he had more reason to fear his neighbour, the Soviet Union, than the distant Germany.
Well Michael if you bothered to read what i wrote you could answer some of the questions you posited immediately. It is hard to engage your rambling writing as you just lump in some one liners that are in no relation to each other.
It does not matter if Israel agrees with the judgement of the ICJ, it does not matter if Palestinians agree with the judgement of ICJ. Whether either side agrees or not is completely beside the point. The agreement of the judged parties with the judge is ridiculous to expect and no legal system in any country expects it or finds it relevant. Neither should we. We are not here to concern ourselves with the feelings of the aggrieved, we are trying to determine what is just and i propose we turn to the law for justice.
Let us turn to some of your points.
First of all Israel was NOT “attacked by massed arab armies more than once aimed at her destruction”. Even Israeli chiefs of staff, major military historians, foreign ministers etc say things like “all the wars of Israel were either wars of choice or folly”. But for the sake of argument lets assume that its true. How exactly does it make Israel safer to occupy Palestine, which never attacked it and has no military. If SAFETY is its primary concern then why does it settle its civilians into “enemy territory”? CLEARY the sending of civilians to live in an enemy country means that safety is the least of Israels concerns, either because it doesn’t care about safety of its civilians (quite unlikely) or because no one poses any threat to it (almost necessary by definition, because if the other side can defend themselves then you are not able to do it anyway) or because it has goals that are more important to it than safety (possible). Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world with air and armor forces larger than any NATO power aside from the US. Clearly, no combination of surrounding states could offer any threat to them (even if it did not have the global superpower to back it up, which makes any aggression against Israel a ludicrous proposition). Additional to that Israel has nuclear weapons, again in violation of international law, which gives them almost complete immunity from any serious military attack. All this security is why Israel is constantly threatening and attacking everyone around itself, it knows no one has the strength to retaliate.
Ok, now that we established that Israel is in zero danger of invasion (especially if in a peace settlement guarantees on security were issued) lets turn to borders. Everyone in the world (apart from Israel and the US and some US dependant pacific atols – votes are like 185:5 on this issue) agrees that the legal international border of Israel is or rather should be the 1967 border (Israel refuses to say what its borders are, again a curious fact if its supposed concern was security). This particular territorial division is so good because the Palestinian side and all the surrounding states have already agreed that they would respect that border. All this solution needs is for Israel to sign on the dotted line. So now we have a border.
On Palestinian borders. I wonder why you always try to erect straw men about some ancestral lands. Who the hell cares about ancestral lands. Bible or the Koran are not relevant to international law. People in Palestine should be given the chance to exercise the right of self determination, period. If they decide to make a state out of non 1967 Israel part of Palestine so be it. If they decide they would like to do something else so be it. If Jordan was still occupying parts of Palestine i would demand Jordan withdraws its occupation. However Jordan is not doing that and were talking about Israel/Palestine conflict so stay on topic please.
As for terrorism. As we already established, compared to the supreme international crime of occupation (which is the cause of Palestinian terrorism and not the response to it anyway) it is a non issue and in any case Israel carries out far more of it than the Palestinian side, again as is to be expected from the balance of forces.
My “feelings” or the feelings of Palestinians and Israelis are the least important thing in the whole debate. I am continually dismayed that all the arguments that supporters of Israeli occupation seem to be able to make are on the line of “oh but i bet you don’t like Israel” which makes no argument and is silly. But it is understandable because when you leave the emotional mumbo jumbo aside it turns out there is no other leg to stand on so it is predictable that emotional appeals will be the way to go for so called defenders of Israel.
The point remains that we have to select a principle on which we will resolve this and other conflicts. I propose this principle to be international law, which has the advantage of it already being agreed upon as well as the advantage of quite significant impartiality. Alternatively we could agree to the principle of so called supporters of Israel, which is, we should listen to what either “feels” or “believes” and whichever side has the might to force their view on the other side is right. This is clearly insane medieval type justice that one would hope we have all ditched into the dustbin of history.
matic all your points turn on the simple point that you think the Israelis should really listen to you (or your formulation of the problem)and all their problems would be straightened out.Yet is is painfully obvious you have not a clue .Even your blowing off the “strange idea” that biblical beliefs converge into modern day politics there shows your complete lack of understanding. Obama would scoff at it.Hilary……And the entire israeli knesset.So obviously they are deluded by their strange security concerns right?No they were never attacked.And you can even prove it by some strange redux of history.Even Terrorism you somehow fudge to the Israeli side of the coin.Look you are right about one thing.The least important thing is how YOU feel about israel or this country for that matter.Because your judgement is suspect and lets face it blitheringly stupid.Israel will retain the power over its enemies to protect her interests.She will not let down her guard or stop manning the towers because you say all is well.She well understands her enemies,and has survived,and thrived in a place that wants her dead.Your soothing words or scholarly wagging of your finger at her “mistakes”is funny in one sense, tragic in the other, If you only knew better.Your head would be on the chopping block just as quickly .Bleat out your protestations and see how much mercy would be given you by some of this lot.Remember palestinians live freely among Israelis.The opposite is simply not true.Far too dangerous.Consider that truth.You are very simply …..nieve.
Matic, accept it â┚¬“ you are simply nieve! Ha ha ha!
Happy Christmas to all decent-minded people across the Atlantic, and keep working and hoping for justice and peace!
During the xmas season, I am especially sorry for being cross or at odds with other peoples opinions.The best thing about this country is the fact that we may not agree on a damn thing…..yet we can shake it off and move toward a better day.So sorry for the bellicosity Matic.Oh and sorry for the naive/nieve joke.Not funny.Im a Scott.Grand mom was born there and used it as a knuckle head reference ,though I hear the term is more violent than I thought.Better Dunderhead.Or neither.
Many of these messages are very good, but I would like to focus on what kind of “historian” this fulsome fool actually is. I assert that all modern nation-states are “invented” peoples, and the two most outstanding examples are: (1) the United States of America; and (2) Israel. Constructed out of divergent peoples and races, they exist as a unity of allegiances to a political ideal, though one is not the same ideal as the other.
Gingrich is a loser in every way.
Your point is well taken and true Lawrence.And further there are few truly homogeneous societies in the world.The history of man is the movement and inclusion of tribes and land.It has always been so.The middle east has certain factions that are as nationalistic as any in the world.And some of that nationalism is based on ancient biblical/religious beliefs.Newt i think was pointing how how little truth there is in the “historical”basis for that belief.You are correct in calling it an allegiance to a political ideal.My problem is those political beliefs seem to include the destruction of Israel and death to the jews.
Michael – I have not seen any post declaring the destruction of Isreal and death to the Jews. You may want this to be the issue but it simply isn’t. Justice and the rule of law is the issue. Nothing more; nothing less.
Elizabeth, you are so condescending and pompous I just have to laught it off. I realize you are a human being and come by your opinions presumably in some rational way, but I see entirely too much of – “you have been brainwashed, read this …., and see it my way”. I don’t see it your way, and I actually like Palestinians … that do not live in that area and are out of the dehumanzing conflict. I feel sorry for those who are stuck there. I am driven by the most pragmatic way to get to fairness and an end to war. I think part of that is the institutionalization of a culture of respect on both sides. Maybe the fact that I have heard nothing about that on the Palestinian side means I am missing something, but maybe it is significant as a measurement of assymetry of cultures and goals. Either you are missing this or you are denying it. yes, the radical Islamic wannabe hegemony has wised up and no longer states publicly death to the Jews, but there are some vestiges of it that proves it is more or less as alive as ever in powerful places. Like the Palestinian Hamas Charter.
Michael E. nice as your historic interpretations are, this issue is really not about history, not about interpretations, it is about power and might. If the Palestinians had it, Israel simply would not exist. That all these papers, agreements, events cannot be agreed on by enough people means that there are those who are not serious about peace. The bottom line with those who talk about history and try to rewrite it or reinterpret it is all about getting rid of Israel or pushing to lead to that point. They look normal, can even talk for a while using politically correct terminology, but in my opinion sooner or later they get basically back to dirty Jews should not live there unless it is as slaves to Islam at our pleasure. It just erupts as the consequence of a rational discussion with these folks as sure a teenagers pimple, but is much uglier. My support for Israel is not because of the Jews, I support any people who cannot live under an oppressive majority, Islam just happens to be by far the most intolerant and large scale system of this currently in the world.
Huw, you find some significance in soldiers hating the enemy … I don’t. Note, that you use soldiers in this example you gave. Abuses of power on the part of soldiers in wartime are many and of a different nature. Would you like to attack the US based on the abuses of our military while at home we are trying to remind everyone that Muslims are not automatically terrorists? Your argument is invalid, and I think you know that, but made it anyway, and I imagine you will probably even defend its use after my comment. You seem to fail to note that this is a hot war, a fighting war. All the Palestinians would have to do to cool that off is to take some minor steps, like stop calling for Israel’s destruction and recognise their right to exist. What do you think the odds of that are?
Yes, the Kurds are indeed Muslims and there are other minority sects of Muslims in Iraq that are oppressed too. But they are culturally more diverse than Palestinians are in their area. Maybe Palestinians would not be so rejected by their own people if they had not tried some kind of military actions just about wherever they have gone. What about his behavior denotes a people worthy of and ready to create their own state?
The Grand Mufti was appointed because he had the weapons and the will to use them. He intimidated and assassinated his opponent becoming Mufti when he was not even qualified .. thus the title Haj. He went on all over the area to try to whip up anti-semitic violence, successfully in Iran and Iraq. By the way, Iran means Aryan, the name change at the time of WWII might have some significance for you. Plus his mentoring of his nephew Yassir Arafat in terrorism and connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. This is documented in many places, the last one I can remember that is global in view is “Icon Of Evil” … a pretty good book except for a silly fear-mongering chapter on what would happened if. Ignore it. Yes, the west won out, I hope you are not complaining about that too.
Brux you aint whistling dixie.Good stuff.You will soon also be persona non grata round these here parts.Welcome to the rodeo
To Huw and Elizabeth: Very nice and thoughtful posts indeed. Your wasting your time trying to reason with the trolls. Remember: The Grand Mufti and the Seriously Flawed Great Evil Icon have the Power, don’t you know, to erase your very mind. Not to be trifled with. I think FAIR’s Old Troll and our New (very verbose and long-winded) Troll should go candlelight bowling together . . . I picture Old Troll rolling the ball between the legs of New Troll whilst clutching a scimitar in one hand and black roses in the other (with hands full, the ball would be forwarded, slowly, by Old Troll’s nose). Then a hearty meal at Hardee’s or some such place and then off to the batting cages, where a reasonable facsimile-scarecrow of Yassir Arafat would be lashed to the fence behind home plate and then pummeled with bats and then balls hurled by the machine set on fast-pitch. They could finish up the night down by the river, pitching empty cans of Coors The Silver Bullet into the water, laughing with contempt at how silly and weak and effeminate Liberals are. Rock on, righteous Trolls!
Sorry, I forgot to include matic–well done, though you are nieve, with a capitol N SIR!!!!!!!
Oh boy Brux, you have been knighted a Troll by the gweat and terwible wizard TIM(he is really a very good man just a very bad CAPITALIST)Hang in there.Having any different opinion from this hive of Liberal/socialist hornets really stirs things up.Attack attack attack….Its all they know.
Although…….. I kind of dig the imagery of his minds vision of what ‘Trolls’ do on any given evening.Very creative Tim.
Tim – You’re so right. Thanks for the chuckle. Hope the trolls will look in the mirror, read their own writings and get some insight. I’ve learned a few things from these posts, but am really tired of the litany of “Moslems: bad; Israelis: good; the Palestinians want to drive Israel into the sea, even though the Likud charter declares that Israel should have all the land West of the Jordan River.” Trolls, consult a good map of the Levant. Peace.
That’s all folks.