As armed gangs terrorize PA, army considers letting Palestinian

[Alice Franken]

police force resume armed patrols
------------------------------------------------

The mayor of the local council of Arabe, a Palestinian town west of Jenin, resigned this week with his council members, after gun-toting militants ordered him to do so. The gunmen accused him of stealing the townspeoples' money.

The fawda (anarchy) is running rampant in the territories, notwithstanding Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia's statements about the need to fight it. Palestinian sources as well as Israeli intelligence sources report a continued deterioration in the situation, and even the meager achievements of the summer's hudna (cease-fire) are crumbling rapidly. The West Bank is dominated by armed gangs, which no longer fear the Palestinian Authority's security forces. Last month Tanzim activists tried to assassinate Nablus Mayor Ghassan Shaq'a and accidentally - or not - killed his brother instead. In Qafr Surda near Bir Zeit, thugs cut off the ears of an administrator in Bir Zeit University, to dissuade him from firing workers.

In Jenin and Nablus militias are engaged in both criminal and terrorist activity. They extort protection fees from merchants and kidnap businesspeople to supplement their income. Or they threaten political activists in an attempt to squeeze benefits from the PA.

While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon formulates his unilateral disengagement plan, which has not been mentioned since his controversial speech in Herzliya, the Israel Defense Forces is also agonizing over what to do. Is the fawda threatening the PA's existence? Should Israel make goodwill gestures to preserve the PA and enable it to establish its power in the territories? And how can this be achieved while Abu Ala declares his loyalty to chairman Arafat, whom Israel blames for the situation?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/378697.html

[Saudade]

1. Hilarious

"While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon formulates his unilateral disengagement plan, which has not been mentioned since his controversial speech in Herzliya, the Israel Defense Forces is also agonizing over what to do. Is the fawda threatening the PA's existence?"

This is hilarious. It is impossible to believe that the IDF is "agonizing over what to do" insofar as any sentient observer knows that the IDF's purpose has been and remains that of the destruction of the PA or any other politically viable entity around which the colonized population might assert its rights in a politically effective manner.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Saudade]

5. "Leftist"

"I don't think 'leftist'is the point here."

There is absolutely nothing in the history of leftist (or liberal) thought to sanction support for an ethnically-defined neo-colonial state engaged in ethnic cleansing since the time of its creation.

[Muddleoftheroad]

6. Israel is NOT ethnically defined

Being Jewish is cultural, ethnic, religious and a shared experience throughout history. There are MANY such nations that fit that model.

Nor is Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing. The Arab world, on the other hand, has done quite well at that job since 1948.

I like the term, "neo-colonial." It sounds like something right out of the Israel haters handbook. How about neo-Chomsky?

[Saudade]

7. Colonial

I assume you understand that several of the early and most signicant zionists considered zionism to be a colonial endeavor.

For example:

"Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power independent of the native population - an iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs..." Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall, 1923.

Moreover, Israel is not only clearly engaged in ethnic cleansing (by means of the separation of natives from their land (among other methods), it was created by ethnic cleansing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

9. Not colonial

Using my friend dictionary.com, I find this for colonial -- relating to a colony. Colony has the following top two definitions:

1) a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
b. A territory thus settled.
2) A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

Since Israeli Jews are RETURNING to their homeland, they don't meet the first requirement. And clearly no other nation controls Israel so they don't meet the second.

How can you accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing and not accuse the Arabs AND Palestinians of the same thing?

What happens when two groups equally claim the same thing? There is conflict and one eventually wins. Israel is NOT evicting the Palestinians from their land.

[MikeGalos]

11. You finally brought up Vladimir "Ze'ev" Jabotinsky...

an obscure and ignored minor early Zionist radical writer who never achieved any significant following, political power or lasting support destined to obscurity in minor dissertations until he suddenly became quotable as an Early Zionist Leader when Arafat's mother-in-law's PR firm rediscovered him and released lots of quotes portraying him as though he had been an actual significant force of history.

There are only two groups that quote Jabotinsky:

• Radical anti-Israel partisans who don't know that he was a trivial footnote (and those feeding them this garbage in the hopes that nobody else knows)
• The JDL who wishes he hadn't been been a trivial footnote.

Sigh. You know things have gotten silly when Jabotinsky gets quoted as "significant".

[Saudade]

12. Jabotinsky

Actually, the Likud ideology more or less derives from Jabotinsky's revisionist zionism, which is why Likud claims him as one of their heros:

http://www.thelikud.org/bios/bio_jabotinsky.htm

Given that Jabotinsky was a racist and a facist (admirer of Mussolini), it would be nice to forget about him, however,

In fact, Jabotinsky is generally acknowledged as the intellectual father of Likud, Israel's current government.

"Jabotinsky's revisionism was the root of the Irgun Zvai Leumi militia in Israel from 1943 until the founding of the State of Israel. Later on, members of the Irgun founded various right-wing poitical parties in Israel, which coalesced in 1973 to form the right-of-centre Likud party. The most prominent of the original parties was the Herut party led by Menachem Begin."

http://www.csuohio.edu/tagar/jabo.html

The Jabotinsky Institute in Israel located at King George Street 38, Tel Aviv (03-5287320, www.jabotinsky.org) is a distinguished respected institute of research and publications. Its archive is a must for any scholar or student or a writer who likes to learn about Jabotinsky, the great charismatic leader of Zionism, Revisionism, heroism, the father of Beitar.


The Likud’s ideology is a manifestation of his dreams and belief but the new generation of Israelis have to learn about this unique leader.
Recently, the institute enriched itself with a multi-vision permanent exhibition: ‘Ze’ev Jabotinsky – His Life Span.’ The inauguration of this exhibition turned out to be an event for celebration. It is certainly a great contribution to the education goals of the Jabotinsky Institute which resided inside the Metsuda (the Citadel), the historical center of the Revisionist movement, its museums and the offices of Herut, the Likud of Beitar.

http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0903/jpn0903f.htm

Therefore, Jabotinsky certainly should be considered "significant" in analysing Israel's current policies toward the Palestinians.

However, if you prefer Ben Gurion, here are his words, declaring zionism to be a colonial project:


"We must expel Arabs and take their places." David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

The main difference between Israel's colonization and that of the British, French and American empire's is that the zionists aimed not so much to exploit the natives as expel them (i.e., ethnic cleansing).

[Gimel]

41. Well, we know

It is obvious where this guy was coming from and where he went to.

[brainshrub]

8. Israel is ethnicly defined.

Heck, they call themselves a Jewish state...by and for Jews!

Being Jewish is cultural, ethnic, religious and a shared experience throughout history. There are MANY such nations that fit that model.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with an ethnic state as long as one ethnicity doesn't get privileges another minority doesn't also receive.

Question: I live in NC. If my grandfather lived in Palestine, and I was a Muslim...would I be allowed to emigrate to Israel as easily as my Jewish neighbor who hasn't had a relative live in the Mid East since 150 A.D.? (My point here is that Jews get special privileges that non-Jews don't. The modern word for this is "apartheid.")

Nor is Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing.

You don't need a gas-chamber to be engaged in ethnic cleansing. Stealing land, forcing people into walled reservations, denying people health-care, torturing dissidents, assassinating leaders and co-opting water-rights has the same effect.
Ask any Native American if you disagree.

I like the term, "neo-colonial." It sounds like something right out of the Israel haters handbook.

Why?

The Arab world, on the other hand, has done quite well at that job since 1948.

Assuming you are correct, why would the actions of the Arab nations justify Israel's own ethnic cleansing?

How about neo-Chomsky?

I like Chomsky. What do you mean by that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. It is not

By being the homeland for Jews, they are inherently NOT ethnically defined. There are many ethnicities included. Israel also is vastly more pluralistic than its neighbors.

No you can't immigrate to Israel as easily. Ireland has a similar policy. If you can prove Irish parents or grandparents (sometimes even great grandparents) then you can claim Irish citizenship. Since Ireland is OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic, they are really only admitting descendants of Catholics.

It is not apartheid to recognize that the Arabs already ethnically cleansed all of their nations and that the Jewish people don't want to give them a chance to go after one more group.

No, you don't need a gas chamber to do ethnic cleansing. Ask every Arab nation or even the Palestinians. They were quite effective in how they handled it.

Why does "neo-colonial" sound hate like? Because, Israel isn't a colony.

Israel's actions are justified because Israel can't trust the Arab neighbors to let it live in peace in a nation where Arabs would be a majority.

I hate Chomsky. That's what I mean by that.

[brainshrub]

13. Is to...so there! :P

By being the homeland for Jews, they are inherently NOT ethnically defined.

You are contradicting yourself!

Would a homeland for blacks be ethnically defined? How about a homeland for the Mormons...would that be religiously defined? Yes and yes! A homeland for Jews is about as inherently ethnically defined as you can possibly get!
I have no problem with ethnically defined states, I have a problem with states that treat it's minorities like animals.

Ireland has a similar policy. If you can prove Irish parents or grandparents (sometimes even great grandparents) then you can claim Irish citizenship. Since Ireland is OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic, they are really only admitting descendants of Catholics.

No they don't. If Ireland had the policy that Israel had I would be allowed to move to Ireland, simply because I'm Catholic, and receive a subsidy while I build my house on a Protestant family's land.

The immigration laws of Ireland are independent of theology. If I had an Irish ancestor, I would be allowed to move to Ireland regardless of my religion.

I would also like to point out that there is a vast difference between a great-grandfather and a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great
-great-grandfather. How many generations do you have to live in another country before your "birthright" fades?
I imagine my descendants would be rather upset if, 1500 years from now, Native Americans started stealing their land the way my ancestors did.

Why does "neo-colonial" sound hate like? Because, Israel isn't a colony.

Your right. But it would never continue to exist without massive subsidies from the United States...so it isn't exactly an independent state either.
I don't know if it is a "Neo-colony" but the word fits.

Israel's actions are justified because Israel can't trust the Arab neighbors to let it live in peace in a nation where Arabs would be a majority.

What actions are you talking about? Allowing pregnant women to die at the border? Torture? Land theft? Walling in the locals?
Those are just some of the crimes that the state of Israel does to it's minorities. Israel has nothing to worry about from it's neighbors anymore, at this point it's fighting to keep itself ethnically in the majority. This policy will, ultimately, fail.

Jews in Israel have to admit that the dream of a Jewish state is doomed unless they want to embrace apartheid. If they don't, then they should admit that a Jewish state is impossible in that part of the world and start making Friends instead of enemies. Here's a hint: Stop stealing land.

I hate Chomsky. That's what I mean by that.

To bad.

[Saudade]

14. Sure

"By being the homeland for Jews, they are inherently NOT ethnically defined."

And up is down and black is white, etc.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. No contradiction

Why would a homeland for blacks be ethnically defined? Are we all alike suddenly? Maybe in America you might think so, but guess what? We aren't.

We have different religions, ethnicities, cultures, etc. Are all blacks the same? Give me a break. Try comparing several generation African-Americans with more recent immigrants and you will be shocked.

Israel does NOT treat minorities like animals. Arabs serve in the Knesset. Enough said.

The immigration laws of Ireland are only independent of theology because theology is a given.

Does birthright ever fade? Especially if you continue to try and honor it? I don't think so.

Israel would indeed continue to exist without U.S. subsidies. If the U.S. pulled out its money, private sources would step up and, in addition, much of American Jewry would leave and move there.

Wow, you seem shocked that Israel puts up border crossings so it can cut down on terror bombings. That is the bare minimum ANY state would do.

Israel has TONS to fear from its neighbors. Bombings, attacks and possible nukes or other weapons. When you are surrounded by many enemies, you have a lot to fear.

The dream of the Jewish state is not at all doomed. It is not apartheid and the Jewish people outnumber non-Jews 5-1, so it is not even vaguely close to changing.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. Your post is a sea of contradictions

By being the homeland for Jews, they are inherently NOT ethnically defined. There are many ethnicities included. Israel also is vastly more pluralistic than its neighbors.
No you can't immigrate to Israel as easily. Ireland has a similar policy. If you can prove Irish parents or grandparents (sometimes even great grandparents) then you can claim Irish citizenship. Since Ireland is OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic, they are really only admitting descendants of Catholics.

This is simply a to quoque fallacy. Instead of refuting the idea that Israel is ethnically defined, you simply give the example of Ireland and how it is also ethnically defined.

You would be on better ground if you were to admit that Israel, as a Jewish state, is ethnically defined and then to ask if there is anything wrong with that. You'd get an argument from many here; nevertheless, how one can say that which purports is to be a Jewish state is not ethnically defined, even if it is more ethnically diverse than her neighbors, is beyond me.

Israel's actions are justified because Israel can't trust the Arab neighbors to let it live in peace in a nation where Arabs would be a majority.

Here, you dig yourself a deeper hole. If I read this correctly, the actions you are saying are justified are those that prevent either an Arab majority for emerging in Israel or, when an Arab majority becomes a reality, that majority from gaining power. How can state action to prevent one ethnic group from gaining dominance over another be anything but ethnically defined?

Again, you may argue, if you like, that Israel has some interest in protecting its Jewish majority and that it is right to do so. However, to say that this is not ethnically defined is absurd.

[brainshrub]

16. tu quoque

Wow. I learned a new word, and have a great new link to add to my favorites. Thanks!

I love I/P. I learn so much.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Saudade]

22. In other words

"If that group gains dominance, it is reasonable to assume they will treat Jews as they have in every other Arab nation -- in other words ethnically cleanse them, at best."

In other words, ethnically cleanse "Greater Israel" of arabs before the arabs ethnically cleanse "Palestine" of jews.

The difference, of course, is that one ethnic cleansing is real (happening every day, to real people whose lives are shattered) and the other is a mere hypothesis.

[MikeGalos]

27. You mean like

the hypothetical ethnic cleansing of the West Bank by Jordan when they ran it?

or the hypothetical requirement that all Jewish settlers in the West Bank leave as a PA condition of a peace treaty?

or the hypothetical citizenship requirement of Jordan that allows anyone to become a citizen unless they are a Jew?

or the hypothetical Palestinian Mandate declaration that only Arabs (and Jews born prior to the 1890s) may become Palestininian citizens?

Wait. I'm wrong. All those are real and not hypothetical.

Israel, it turns out, has a more diverse population than the United States. That "ethnic cleansing" is also not hypothetical, it's just hype.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

23. Question

Israel is NOT ethnically defined. To say it is so is incorrect. There are many factors in being Jewish and ethnicity is only ONE. Ethnically, Israel is a melting pot. After all this time in I/P, I would think you would have learned that. Clearly, I was wrong on that much.

Israel's actions are to prevent destruction at the hand of its friendly Arab neighbors who have sought to do so for 55 years. If that group gains dominance, it is reasonable to assume they will treat Jews as they have in every other Arab nation -- in other words ethnically cleanse them, at best

How can you ethnically cleanse something if it is not ethnically defined?

[Lurking Dem]

24. The Jews living in Arab countries

WERE ethnically defined as Sephardim. Ethiopian Jews and European decent Jews were not living there.

[MikeGalos]

28. Gee

I don't recall any of those restricive laws on Jews, or expulsions, or siezures of property, or sanctioned beatings and murders ever saying "Gee, this only applies to Sephardic Jews, any Ashkenazi who happen to be here are just peachy with us"

Nope. It was Jew hatred without distinction.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Tu quoque

Translation: You, too.

You attempted to refute my contention with a red herring that Ireland does likewise. That is a tu quoque fallacy.

Pointing out logical fallacies in your argument is neither ridiculous, obnoxious nor snotty. It supports my contention that you failed to make your point. In fact, the way you attempted to refute what I said, you reinforced the fact that Israel is an ethnically defined state.

Israel is a Jewish state. Jews are a distinct and recognizable group of people. While there may be more to being a Jew than ethnicity, that is still a great part of it. I know many people who don't observe the religious practices of Judaism or intermarry with non-Jews and who still regard themselves as Jewish. Nazi anti-Semitism and the ensuing Holocaust, the final event in turning world opinion in favor of the Zionist project, defined Jews racially (their term) or, more accurately, ethnically. It had nothing to do the devotion any individual Jew showed to the faith of his ancestors. The came can be said of the Israeli law of return. It is ethnically defined.

[Lurking Dem]

21. Do you consider

black Jews to be ethnically the same as Lebanese Jews? Are Iraqi Jews ethnically the same as Turkish Jews? Are any of them the same ethnicity as European decent Jews?

[Jack Rabbit]

26. See post number 25

Judaism is more than simply a religion. What is it about being a Jew that makes one a Jew when one does not observe the practices of the religion of the Jews? My grandmother was a Methodist. I don't attend church. I am not a Methodist. On the other hand, my great grandfather was a Jew. Why does nobody question me when I say that I am "part Jewish"? After all, I don't know any more about being a Jew than I know about being a Methodist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Res ipsa loquitur

Jack, I would think we have discussed Israel enough for you to realize that it is NOT ethnically defined. In fact, many factors contribute to Israel and the nation remains a pluralistic entity with a full 1 million non-Jewish citizens. How you could claim ethnicity is a requirement still baffles me. We have discussed it ad nauseam.

Israel’s actions are necessary for survival. The friendly neighboring Arab states have ALREADY ethnically cleansed all of their nations. There is only one left in the Mideast for them to target and by their actions they give Israel casus belli.

And, by the way, in case my point is not clear. I consider arguing in Latin to be a de facto foolish thing.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. I stand my ground

Jack, I would think we have discussed Israel enough for you to realize that it is NOT ethnically defined. In fact, many factors contribute to Israel and the nation remains a pluralistic entity with a full 1 million non-Jewish citizens. How you could claim ethnicity is a requirement still baffles me. We have discussed it ad nauseam.

Israel defines herself as a Jewish state. Moreover, it defines a Jew in a quasi-ethnic sense. For example, one is a Jew if one's mother's is a Jew. This gives one rights in immigrate to and become a citizen of Israel that others do not have. One does not have to be an observant Jew, just have a Jewish mother or a Jewish grandparent and one is a Jew.

On the other hand, one may also convert, although I believe present Israeli law recognizes only Orthodox conversions.

I did not say that it is a requirement to be a Jew in order to become an Israeli citizen. However, it makes it a lot easier if one is.

Sorry about the Latin; normally, I don't use Latin unless I'm discussing logical fallacies. That's because many fallacies have Latin names. The full name of the one you uncorked is Argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque (argument to the person: you, too). It is a branch of the red herring family of fallacies. I prefer to call a red herring a red herring, instead of its formal name, Ignoratio elenchi.

By the way, you might like this link.

[dudeness]

29. you hate chomsky..

in what way does this 70+ year old linguistics professor threaten you muddle???

[bluesoul]

30. Chomsky

is not in line with the current Israeli policy...

[Saudade]

32. Chomsky

People who claims to "hate" Chomsky really just fear the truth that he tells and they cannot refute.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Truth?

Yeah, truth that's the word. LOL.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Chomsky is a revisionist moron

How's that?

[MikeGalos]

35. Nonsense

Chomsky, being a linguist, would be appalled at his being called a moron since his IQ is measurably outside the range to qualify and thus it's an incorrect use of language.

Perhaps you meant to say, "Chomsky is a revisionist sociopath"?

[bluesoul]

39. And Sharon

is a hero, right? duhhhh

[dudeness]

37. based on your previous posts muddle,

I would say fairly apt..

[SheilaT]

17. When I see PA in the header

I think Pennsylvania.

[Alice Franken]

18. LOL

me, too, anywhere else but in I/P!

[Aidoneus]

40. how dare they try to compete!

The IDF is the only armed gang allowed to terrorize the PA! :eyes: