The Roadmap is Finished, Mr. Secretary

[vierundzwanzig]

"But even my sarcastic remarks are insufficient to convey the frustration felt by many Palestinians, a frustration that gave birth to two Palestinian bombings in Israel, on August 12, after a lull in violence that lasted for weeks .."

By Ramzy Baroud*

U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell stated in a recent speech that the Roadmap for peace is not finished. Powell’s words defied reality. The U.S. brokered peace initiative was born dead, and whatever ray of hope the document might have possessed, has already been assassinated by Israel, literally.

“We’ve already seen reports on television that say, well, the Roadmap is now finished, or the ceasefire is over, or this is all off track. No, it is not,” Powell breached to a group of Arab and Israeli kids in Maine, gathering for a three-week summer camp.

Setting aside the violations of the Roadmap by Israel, he signaled out the only violent Palestinian retaliation, stating, “we will not be stopped by bombs, we will not be stopped by this kind of violence.”

I cannot confirm, but I have a feeling that Powell’s courageous exclamation won him lasting applause by the kids and their mentors at the camp.

I only wish that Powell’s courage was abundant enough to acknowledge the 856 Israeli violations of the Roadmap. Wouldn’t it have been equally appropriate to exclaim: “we will not be stopped by assassinations, home demolitions, military checkpoints, the building of illegal settlements, the uprooting of trees, the seizure of land and the deteriorating health of most Palestinian children as a result of Israel’s siege and military closures?”

http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20030818203440672

(Sorry for the long intro - it was necessary to convey the spin of the story)

[GabysPoppy]

1. New Islamic Map for Peace

another view of the roadmap

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2635

The Road Map to Peace in the Middle East is too small. It needs to include the entire Islamic world.

The major obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the Islamic world's rejection of Israel as a Jewish state. The 55-year-old State of Israel still does not exist on maps produced in Islamic countries. All road maps to peace in the Middle East will come to a dead end until the sovereign State of Israel is included on Arab world maps.

snip

Israel can be drawn on Islamic maps as a small patch of blue and white on a large green rug running from the Atlantic Ocean to the borders of India. If the contiguous Islamic world from Morocco to Pakistan were the size of a football field, Israel would be a football placed in the middle of the field.

snip

Peace will come from a fresh metaphor in which the Arabs see Israel's existence as Allah's will. A shift in viewpoint, where Israel is perceived as the necessary counter-pattern in the overall pattern of the Islamic world will usher in an era of peace. The Islamic world needs to recognize Israel as the realization of its own aesthetic values. Only after it draws new maps that include Israel can peace be achieved.

snip

For those that wish to decry the source, prepare to defend the original source of the above posted article as being fair and objective.

[vierundzwanzig]

2. I think you hit the nail on the head

>>> The major obstacle to peace between Israelis and Palestinians is the Islamic world's rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.

I think this is very true. I think just about no nation in the world accepts Israel as an Apartheid state.

That this notion of a 'Jewish State' is so easily pronounced in the United States is a definite fear-factor for me.

Is there a 'White-Christian' Texas?

Althought Utah is largely populated by LDS (Mormons) who were persecuted, I do not recall them ever pronouncing Utah the 'Mormon State' and denying non-Mormons equal rights.

None of the above would be acceptable in modern days. How could anybody ever seriously and morally justify such a demand? Is there something very special about the Jews? That is more special than the American Indians who have been wiped out? Or the countless ethnic groups that have fallen prey to progroms, persecution or plain unfair treatment over the centuries?

[GabysPoppy]

3. What are you afraid of?

"That this notion of a 'Jewish State' is so easily pronounced in the United States is a definite fear-factor for me."

Why not expand on that concept?

[vierundzwanzig]

7. The idea

that somehow this 'Jewish' (or whatever ethnicity) state concept has entered mainstream lingo and somehow attained de facto legitimacy is scary.

It seems most Americans have somehow forgotten about the Bill of Rights, one of the cornerstones of this country, which exactly should *differentiate* a free and democratic nation from an exclusive Apartheid state.

It is even scarier to me that I have to elaborate on that.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Legitimacy

Remember, Israel HAS legitimacy. It was set up by the UN AS the homeland for the Jewish people. It has existed for 55 years in that form. If you don't like it, it's a little late to register a complaint.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Excuse me, Muddle...

I'm not arguing that Israel has legitimacy as a state. It does. But why are you using a UN General Assembly resolution to argue yr case when you've loudly pooh-poohed the UN as bogus before?

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. I am only pointing out

Others here keep mentioning the UN, I am only throwing it back in their faces.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. The problem is...

That if *you* think the UN and its resolutions are bogus, then obviously the recognition by the UN of Israel as a state isn't the reason why you think Israel is a legitimate state. Me being someone who does believe in the legitimacy of the UN, I have no trouble in pointing out that Israels legitimacy as a state comes from recognition by the international community and Israel being accepted as a member of the UN, even if there were stipulations to the membership that Israel never carried out. For someone who doesn't believe that the UN or its resolutions carry any weight, what would they point to in order to show Israel is a legitimate state? It exists, therefore it is? That doesn't really work for me. That doesn't explain its legitimacy...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. No, I don't think the UN is entirely bogus

But the concept of international law is still in its infancy and not universally acknowledged, enforced or respected.

[durutti]

8. I think he feels the same way I do

I'm against any racially-, religiously-, or ethnically-exclusive state -- Islamic, Jewish, white, black, Christian, you name it.

Such a state is fundamentally anti-democratic.

I'm willing to accept the existence of Israel, once Israel becomes secular and more truly democratic. The same goes (for example) for Iran.

[GabysPoppy]

10. Some facts for you

Population: 5,938,093 (July 2001 est.)

Racial/Ethnic background: Jewish 80% (Europe/America-born 32%, Israel-born 21%, Africa-born 14.5%, Asia born 12.5%), non-Jewish 20% (mostly Arab)

Religion: 80% Jewish, 15% Muslim, 2% Christian, 3% other

http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/wmd/ep/country/isrdemo.htm

There are approximately 13,000,000 million people of Jewish ethnicity in the entire world. Almost 50% of them live in Israel. Therefore it is hardly a stretch to call it a Jewish state. Maybe you can find another country which comes close to this percentage.

Now tell me what makes it "un-democratic". All citizens of Israel have the right to vote. All segments of the Israeli population are represented in the government. All religions are allowed to practice.

If you are so concerned about democracy in the middle east, can you name another country in the region with the same qualities?

Another aspect of a democracy is something else you may be familiar with. It is called a "free press". I am sure you have read the editorials in the major Israeli press and you will find positions of every kind. The press is NOT run or controlled by the government. I challenge you to name other middle eastern countries with similiar values.

Thankyou for: "I'm willing to accept the existence of Israel, once Israel becomes secular and more truly democratic." By your own standards then I can only imagine when you will except the "existence" of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. as democratic entities.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

13. What you fail to address is the fact that

the purpose of Israel is as a homeland for the Jewish people. Israel exists as a "Jewish" state.

Specifically, this requires that the state of Israel retain a Jewish majority.

This means that Israel cannot absorb the Arab population of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Doing so would destroy the demographic majority of Jews required by a Jewish state.

Thus, excluding the right wing policy of forced transference, a two state solution is the only possibility for Israel.

Unfortunately, Malthusian considerations come into to play here. The West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is the location of great water resources necessary for sustaining the population of Israel.

So we see that in order for Israel to exist as a Jewish state it must

a.) create a state for the existing Arab population of Gaza and the West Bank.

b.) retain control of the natural resources of this Arab state thereby creating a non-autonomous, reservation or homeland style parcel of land, creating a Arab population of second or third class citizens.

c.) this arab population consigned to second class status will remain violent, as do all oppressed peoples, ensuring the continuation of violence.

Obviously, the only solution to the problem is the creation of a one-state Democracy that gives no preference to racial or religious identity and grants equal rights and representation to the entire population.

Simply put, Zionism, since its inception in the late 19th century, is completely incompatible with Democracy since it requires a Jewish majority and draconian policies and laws to ensure this Jewish majority.

Zionism, or the demand for a "Jewish State" is as incompatible with peace as is the demand for an "Aryan State".

[The Magistrate]

92. Here Is The Point In A Nutshell, Mr. Veblen

Israel was established in order that there be a place on this earth where state persecution of Jews was a practical impossibility. Given the sorry tale of history in that regard, this does not seem unreasonable to me. To the heirs of that history, what it is called, whether by people moved by concerns of humanist idealism or radical politics, makes no difference whatever. The Jews of Israel, and the world, will not give it up. Nor will it be of any avail to romanticize conditions under Moslem rule in contrast with Christendom: even in the best of times, Jewish existance under Islam was legally second class, bound by signifigant restrictions on legal rights; at the worst of times it was marked by depredation and murder. Throughout the modern era, the existance of religious minorities in Islamic countries has been precarious, even where these are themselves Islamic.

That there are possible long-term difficulties, none can deny, and it is not my view the solution contrived by the United Nations in 1947 was a perfect one. It is my view that it was the best available solution that could be practically carried out, and remains so to this day. You will be aware, Sir, my taste runs neither towards absolutes or perfection, but resides comfortably among the swirls of grey which make up this world here below we inhabit.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Democracy in the Middle East...

If you are so concerned about democracy in the middle east, can you name another country in the region with the same qualities?

As the same qualities you mentioned? How about Jordan? I hate to rain on yr parade where you get to use that way over-used line about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, but using the criteria you used for democracy, Jordan is a democracy too...


Violet...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

38. Jordon has a King.

[Classical_Liberal]

100. Britain and Denmark have queens

.

[GabysPoppy]

39. Jordan - LOL

1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
U.S. Department of State, February 25, 2000

JORDAN
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a constitutional monarchy that was ruled by King Hussein bin Talal from 1952 until his death in February. On February 7, King Hussein's eldest son, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Hussein, acceded to the throne. The Constitution concentrates a high degree of executive and legislative authority in the King, who determines domestic and foreign policy.

snip

Although the law provides prisoners with the right to humane treatment, the police and security forces sometimes abuse detainees physically and verbally during detention and interrogation and allegedly use torture as well. Allegations of torture are difficult to verify because security officials frequently deny detainees timely access to lawyers.

snip

The security forces arbitrarily arrest and detain citizens. Under the Constitution, citizens are subject to arrest, trial, and punishment for the defamation of heads of state, dissemination of " false or exaggerated information outside the country that attacks state dignity," or defamation of public officials.

snip

The Government uses the threat of detention to intimidate journalists into practicing self-censorship (see Section 2.a.). Typically, a journalist who has criticized a government official or policy is detained for 5 to 10 days. While in detention, the journalist may experience abuse (see Section 2.a.). Charges rarely are filed. Convictions are rare, but proceedings may last several years, with defendants required to appear in court regularly, only to be informed that another in a series of continuances has been issued in their case.

snip

Freedom of Speech and Press

The Constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press; however, the Government imposes some restrictions on these rights.

The 1998 Press and Publications Law, combined with the 1998 Press Association Law, impose stringent restrictions on the operation of newspapers. The Government also intimidates journalists to encourage self-censorship. Private citizens may be prosecuted for slandering the royal family, the Government, or foreign leaders, and for sowing sedition. Citizens generally do not hesitate to criticize the Government openly, but are more circumspect in regard to the King and the royal family.

snip

It was illegal under the 1998 Press and Publications Law to publish news, opinion, information, reports, caricatures, or photos that disparage the King or the royal family, pertain to the armed forces or security services, harm national unity, disparage religion, offend an individual or harm his reputation, disparage the heads of friendly states, harm the country's relations with other nations, promote perversion or lead to moral corruption, shake confidence in the national currency, or feature false news or rumors. However, amendments that became effective on October 16 removed these specific prohibitions from the Press and Publications Law. Criminal law still places significant restrictions on what can be published.

snip

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The Government restricts freedom of assembly. Citizens must obtain permits for public gatherings. The Government granted almost no permits for demonstrations during the year and denies permits for public protests and rallies that it determines pose a threat to security.

snip

Freedom of Religion

The Constitution provides for the safeguarding of " all forms of worship and religious rites in accordance with the customs observed in the Kingdom, unless such is inconsistent with public order or morality;" however, the Government imposes some restrictions on freedom of religion. Citizens may not always practice the religion of their choice. According to the Constitution, Islam is the state religion.

snip
Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation

The law provides for the right of citizens to travel freely abroad and within the country except in designated military areas; however, there are some restrictions on freedom of movement. The law requires that all women, including foreign women married to citizens, obtain written permission from a male guardian--usually their father or husband--to apply for a Jordanian passport. Authorities enforce requests from fathers to prevent their children from departing the country, even when the children are traveling with their mothers.

snip

Citizens do not have the ability to change their government. The King has sole discretionary authority to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, to dissolve Parliament, and to establish public policy. Appointments made by the King to high government posts do not require legislative approval. Executive power is vested in the King (or, in his absence, in the Regent), who exercises his power through his ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

snip

Women

Violence against women is common. Reported incidents of violence against women do not reflect the full extent of the problem. Medical experts acknowledge that spousal abuse occurs frequently. However, cultural norms discourage victims from seeking medical or legal help and frustrate an objective assessment of the extent of such abuse.
(you will find this whole chapter very interesting)

snip

http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1999_hrp_report/jordan.html

Link for the rest of the report

Do you spell Democracy - BULLSHIT

[ThorsteinVeblen]

44. Doesn't sound at lot different than Israel.

The IDF frequently abuses prisoners who are held at will and without trial.

Abuses of non-Israeli Palestinians in the occupied territories are frequent and include searches, beatings and extend all the way up to summary executions and extra-judicial assinations.

The IDF frequently denies journalists access to occupied areas especially during "military operations". Israel has banned the broadcasting of the BBC within its borders accusing the network of "anti-semitism".

Non-Jews are second class citizens. Non-Israeli Palestinians cannot be granted Israeli citizenship even through marriage.

Judaism is the state religion. There is no Israeli constitution - the fundamentalists demand adherence to talmudic law while the secular portion of Israeli society demands a secular legal system. The Israeli government is silent on this matter and does not constitutionally guarantee religious freedom and legal protection for non-Jews. Laws upholding these rights can be changed at whim by Parliment.

[GabysPoppy]

45. Your post doesn't even merit a response

[ThorsteinVeblen]

55. Am I wrong?

Which point do you challenge?

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Yes, it does...

If you disagree with it, how about explaining why? If you honestly disagree with something and have some sort of rational reason why, you shouldn't find it all that difficult. Try it. You might even like it...

Violet...

[Gimel]

103. A matter of emphasis

Words like "frequently" are added to distort the reality.

However, as a matter of fact, you might add the USA, South Africa, UK, and almost any other nation in the world. A nation under attack is paranoid. It is what Israelis call "the situation". The conflict and the measures of search and seizure that are common throughout Israel. Jew or non-Jews, there are no distinctions made here. Road blocks, searches and arrests without due process are common. Sorry, it's not your middle-class US neighborhood.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. And constitutional monarchies can be democracies...

Jordan has a King. Australia, Canada and the UK have a Queen. You going to sit there and try and tell us that they're not democracies either? As for the rest, try dropping the blind defence of everything Israel does and take note that Israel's no better now you've suddenly decided to add more criteria to yr original definition of democracy...


Violet...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Jackie97]

47. Besides Violet's point that's been made...

I'd like to point out the fact that Israel is currently telling Jewish Israelis that they can't marry an Arab without either having to be separated or to leave Israel. That's not the free country that they make themselves out to be. Between that and their segregated schooling system, Israel looks more and more like the United States during the time period of Jim Crow to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. True...

I would have pointed that stuff out except Gabyspoppy originally narrowly defined democracy for Israel by pointing out three aspects of democracy. Now that he's returned after finding out that Jordan's also a democracy and decided to complain about human rights, he's left himself open to the stuff yr pointing out and more besides...

Violet...

[Gimel]

102. Missed point

The law that you are referring to applies to non-Jews living in the territories who marry and Israeli (probably an Israeli Arab). Of course, you may find an instance of a Jewish Israeli who wants to marry an Arab Palestinian, but that is very rare. Jewish religious law does not allow intermarriage, and I'm sure it's the same for the Moslems. Civil marriages aren't yet a reality, so that hypothetical couple would really have a problem.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Damn nice of you

However, it's not your decision whether Israel exists or not. NOR is it the decision of the Arab nations around it. Israel exists. Either they accept that fact or embrace perpetual war.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

16. And as long as Israel exists

as a "Jewish" state, there will be perpetual war.

Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. That is the choice of the Arab world then

Not the choice of Israel. Israel has a right to exist. Those that deny it or fight it are the ones choosing perpetual war.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

18. What "right" does Israel have to exist

as a nation that requires a Jewish majority? What about the Arab population that already exists in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza?

Does the Aryan race have a "right" to a nation with an Aryan majority, ruled by Aryans for Aryans?

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Israel

You may have forgotten was actually created by the UN. It exists as a homeland for the world's most persecuted group -- the Jews.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

20. Exactly

And a "homeland" based on ethnicity or religion is incompatible with Democracy.

Especially when this "homeland" displaces an Arab population already living on the land, forces this Arab popluation onto reservations and then siezes the natural resources on the reservations.

Jewish people have as much right to life and freedom as do Arabs. No more, no less. They are not entitled to a state that negates the rights of others.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Homelands

"And a "homeland" based on ethnicity or religion is incompatible with Democracy."

I guess you better tell that to a whole hell of a lot of nations around the world that have such homelands. You just don't like ISRAEL having one.

The establishment of the Jewish state did NOT force Arabs onto reservations. The rejection of that state by the Arabs resulted in a war which has led us down this path.

Don't rewrite history that much, it's ridiculous.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

22. Oh really

Which whole hell of a lot of nations?

I never suggested that Pakistan or Saudi Arabia were democracies - did I? Has anyone ever suggested this?

Furthermore, there wasn't a large Jewish popuation already residing in Pakistan when it broke away from India and declared itself a Islamic homeland. Lastly, I would never defend such an action if it had occured.

Muslims have no fundamental "right" to a "homeland" to the exclusion of other peoples.

Is that what you are arguing? Every people has a right to a homeland that guarantees a ethnic majority? Aryan homeland? Jewish homeland? Arab homeland? West African homeland? East African homeland? Indian homeland?

Do you or do you not agree that as a Jewish state, Israel requires a Jewish majority?

Do you or do you not agree that a constitution requiring an ethnic majority is unDemocratic?

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. OK, let's start somewhere

Ireland is for the Irish. Italy for the Italians. Spain for the Spanish. Etc.

Yes, as long as Israel wishes to maintain its character as a Jewish homeland, that is its right. EVERY nation gets to choose who it allows in as citizens.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

29. And America is for whitey.

Ireland, Italy and Spain don't base citizenship on ethnic or religious identity.

Being "Irish" means you take and pass the citizenship.

Ireland does not turn immigrants away because of ethnic or religous identity - only facist regimes like Saudi Arabia do this.

Israel, by doing this, shows it has more in common with regimes like Saudi Arabia than with Western Democracies. Israel won't even grant citizenship to the Arab spouses of Israeli citizens including Jews.

There is nothing in the Irish constitution that demands Ireland retain a majority of Catholics or people born of a Celtic mother. In fact, Ireland is a striking parallel to the situation in the middle with the British in the role of the Israelis and the Catholics in the role of the Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Ireland

Doesn't have to worry about the majority being Catholic. Israel is wildly diverse by comparison.

[StandWatie]

27. Pakistan is normally a democracy

Well, not normally but the majority of the time it is, the Generals get pissy and take over about once a decade but Pakistan will be a democracy again in the sense of it's head of state sometime in the next few years or Pervez is going to wind up dead somewhere.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

30. Pakistan is a Islamic homeland.

I would venture as to guess that the Pakistani Constitution requires a Islamic majority.

[StandWatie]

32. no..

I'm not really a big fan of partition but there is nothing specific about a Muslim majority..

http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part9.html

That's the entire Islamic part of the constitution..

[ThorsteinVeblen]

33. Fine, but the constitution requires adherence to Isalmic law

which means all non-Muslims in Pakistan have to live under Islamic law.

[StandWatie]

36. no...

(3) Nothing in this Part shall affect the personal laws of non- Muslim citizens or their status as citizens.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

37. I am wrong

You are right.

Islam is the State religion though.

[jos]

63. Yes. An Islamic state

Which is as wrong as a Jewish state.

[StandWatie]

65. so is england screwed up..

because it has a state religion?

[ThorsteinVeblen]

23. Wrong Again.

"The establishment of the Jewish state did NOT force Arabs onto reservations. The rejection of that state by the Arabs resulted in a war which has led us down this path."

The indigenous Arab popuation ran for their lives because there was a war going on in 1948. That is why they are currently massed in Gaza and the West Bank in refugee camps. These innocent people did not take part in the war, there only crime was in fleeing it.

Furthermore, you fail to take into consideration the fact that a Jewish "homeland" requires a Jewish majority OR the disqualification of non-Jews from citizen status.

All of the Arab popluation in "Israel" before 1948 would have either been transferred or denied citizenship in order to create a Jewish state - war or no war.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. If the Palestinians wish to complain

They should complain to the ARAB nations that invaded and started the war, not Israel.

[StandWatie]

28. the Arabs didn't invite the Zionists

You are never going to convince people who had lived there for a few millenia that somehow they started a war with a bunch of Europeans trying to take over.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Then what is the point in trying?

nt

[StandWatie]

71. what do you mean "try"

I'd definately try and quit telling the Palestinians that they somehow started a war with European Jews because it doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Then there appears to be no hope

Using your logic.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

75. Yeah, Aristotelian Logic is a bitch

I am sure you prefer Kafkaesque Logic, but most people still consider the Aristotelian a little better.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. As long as Palestinians view Israelis as invaders

There will be no peace. That's real logic, too bad you can't grasp it.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

80. "Israelis" aren't invaders

You are mixing up your words and your ideas. Palestine, under the Ottoman Empire, consisted both of Jews and Arabs who lived a peaceful existence under a government who respected and tolerated both cultures. The problems started when European Jews started moving to Palestine with the intention of cleansing the land of Arabs to create a Jewish homeland.

Things have escalated from there.

When the British took over from the Ottoman Empire, they were the victims of Jewish terrorism, because they opposed Zionism. Jewish terrorists including a future prime minister - Menachim Begin - hit soft targets like hotels and office buildings to order to create chaos and terror and force the British out.

Things culminated in 1948 when massive European Jewish immigrants fleeing from the horrors of Europe arrived in Palestine and demanded a Jewish homeland. A Jewish homeland required a Jewish majority and thus required the forced transferrence or denial of citizenship to indigenous Arabs already living on the land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. A couple points

Jews were run out of their homeland by various governments. They have returned and if the Palestinians don't like that, too bad.

There IS a difference between terror and freedom fighting -- often debated here. Deliberately killing civilians is terror, like the attack on the bus by Palestinian terrorists. The attack on the King David Hotel was a military attack since that was a British military HQ. The Jewish freedom fighters also notified authorities of the bomb ahead of time.

[The Magistrate]

93. You Are On Shakier Ground Here, Mr. Veblen

The Ottoman respected nothing but themselves, and the collection of taxes. Jews and Christians were legally barred from carrying arms, holding landlord's tenure within the Sultan's domains, and testifying in court against a Moslem, as well as being subjected to extra taxes, and restricted in their behavior by a variety of sumptuary laws and the like.

English authorities were not subject to "Jewish terrorism" in any measure for the first fifteen years of the Mandate, and not in appreciable measure until the end of World War Two. England's policy did not oppose Zionism; indeed, in the first years of the Mandate, Zionism was the official policy of England, as well as of the League of Nations, which adopted the Balfour declaration as part of the Mandatory grant. It is true some English officials, and most English military officers, were hostile to Jews and to Zionism, both from the normal Anti-Semitism of their time and class, and from concern for offending the substantial Islamic portions of England's imperium. It was only after the outbreak of the Arab Revolt in the mid 1930s that England's policy changed in the matter, and some degree of violent Jewish assault on English Mandatory institutions commenced.

The United Nations partition, voted late in 1947, constructed a zone with a slight Jewish majority, divided from a zone almost exclusively Arab. The partition, unfortunately, was greeted with rejection on the part of both Arab Nationalists in Palestine, and the Arab League, and an intensification of attacks against Jewish residents not only of Mandatory Palestine but neighboring Arab countries. In the ensuing full-bore hostilities, a number of Arabs fled, in some instances voluntarily, in many others through coercion. But it required both the rejection of the partition and the institution of hostilities to creat the conditions in which this flight occured. It did not have to be the way it turned out to be.

In regards to your No. 22 above, referencing Pakistan's establishment: while there was no substantial Jewish population in the land alloted to Pakistan, there were substantial populations of Hindus and Sihks. These were driven out with extraordinary violence during the initial formation of Pakistan, just as many Moslems were driven from India. Indeed, hundreds of thousands were done to death, most barbarously, and tens of millions fled their homes, with nothing, never to be allowed to return.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

101. Touche, once again

"These were driven out with extraordinary violence during the initial formation of Pakistan, just as many Moslems were driven from India. Indeed, hundreds of thousands were done to death, most barbarously, and tens of millions fled their homes, with nothing, never to be allowed to return."

And we can all agree that this kind of ethnic cleansing is unjust.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

31. Israel is occupying the land

The other Arab nations aren't.

The problem started with Zionism in the late 19th century. Zionism considers "Israel" the eternal right of the Jews. It demands a ownership of "Israel" by the Jewish people. That is a concept that is as ridiculous as the Arabs "owning" "Israel".

It is completely and utterly incompatible with Democracy and has everything in common with Facist regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Without Zionism you would never have had the 1948 war.

The Jews, as a religion and ethnicity, no more own "Israel" than the Christians or the Muslims. It is, and should be, an international Democratic zone open to all people regardless of religious or ethnic heritage.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. I love this diversity bullshit

Show me the fucking divesity in the ARAB world. Show me how Jews are treated in the ARAB world. Don't tell me that Israel needs to embrace them. It doesn't. Every time Jews end up in the minority in nations, we know what happens. Why would they EVER consider being the minority to a majority of people many of whom are sworn to destory them?

As an aside, no nation is, "an international Democratic zone open to all people regardless of religious or ethnic heritage." Every nation picks and chooses its immigrants.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

48. Just more proof that Israel is no better than the rest of the Arab world

"Show me how Jews are treated in the ARAB world."

Apparently, they were treated fine in Iraq. Many Jews also live peacefully in Turkey. Most of the mistreatment started after the imperialist nature of Zionism became clear and the indigenous Arab population of Israel was displaced by the 1948 war.

"Every time Jews end up in the minority in nations, we know what happens."

Really, what about the US?

"Why would they EVER consider being the minority to a majority of people many of whom are sworn to destory them?"

You can't expect to throw people off their land, advocate their forced transferrence, deny them civil rights, deny them the ability to make a living, deny them compensation for their land, deny them the ability to govern themselves, deny them freedom of movement and expect them not to fight you.

Jews do not "own" the land of Israel. God did not "give" it to them. They have no "right" to displace a non-Jewish population already living on the land.

"As an aside, no nation is, "an international Democratic zone open to all people regardless of religious or ethnic heritage."

"Israel", being critically important to the heritage of Europe, Chritianity, Judaism, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Islam is different than any other "nation" in the world. It does not belong to any one religious or ethnic identity.

One religon or ethnicity has no right to claim exclusive domain. History does not confer on the Jewish people the right to deny an Arab population indigenous to the region freedom, land and economic viability.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Hold them to the SAME standard

Using that measure, Israel is head and shoulders above its nice neighbors.

How about: Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Libya, etc.?

The Jewish time in the U.S. is still short. Who knows what will happen. Based on some of the posters here, it doesn't look good.


"You can't expect to throw people off their land, advocate their forced transferrence, deny them civil rights, deny them the ability to make a living, deny them compensation for their land, deny them the ability to govern themselves, deny them freedom of movement and expect them not to fight you."

Funny, that's what you are expecting of the Israelis.


The government of Israel actually owns most of the land that is Israel.

I love this: "Israel", being critically important to the heritage of Europe, Chritianity, Judaism, the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Islam is different than any other "nation" in the world. It does not belong to any one religious or ethnic identity."

Wrong, it belongs to Israel. Try taking it and see what happens.

History AND the UN conferred right to that land. Brains and guts have kept it.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

52. "Try taking it and see what happens."

Ah, the crux of the argument - might makes right. History may prove your point. But never again claim moral privlege for Israel - I will laugh all the way to armegeddon.

I can see the Jewish terrorists now, fighting off the occupiers until death, Jewish children throwing bombs, Jewish heros sacrificing themselves for the sake of the Jewish people, attacking soft targets like hotels in order to create choas and terror, all justified because they are fighting evil.


"Funny, that's what you are expecting of the Israelis."

Really? I never suggested that. You have a funny way of conferring victim status onto the oppressor in this situation. All those poor European immigrants, forced to live on land taken from murdered and transferred Arabs, given money and support by the government - I feel so sorry for them.

"The government of Israel actually owns most of the land that is Israel."

Well, I guess that begs the question. You are arguing that all I need to do to "own" something is to force the current occupant off the land through violence. Do you "own" a house? What if I decided to take it through violence? Would I then "own" your house?


Power may be the ultimate arbitor but don't expect those being crushed by the boot of power to not fight back. You reap what you sew.


"Using that measure, Israel is head and shoulders above its nice neighbors."

Again, the measure I use is Democracy. Oppression is oppression anyway you cut it. All those nations including Israel fall below the cut off point. It just doesn't matter who is worse than who once you are below a certain point.

That said, I am the biggest critic of the anti-semitic government of Saudi Arabia you will ever find. The anti-semitic crap that comes out of Egypt is a problem too.

Anti-semitism in the Arab world is almost purely tied to the existence of Zionism. It is a reaction to the perception that Arabs have of being attacked.

Turkey, on the other hand is markedly better than Israel. There is no active persucution of any minority and citzenship is not limited to those of certain ethnic or religous identities. The Ottomans offered Spainish Jews refuge from the Spanish inquisition and this tradition of tolerance and partnership with the Jewish people has continued to the present day.

[StandWatie]

67. Turkey?

You do not want to be Roma or Kurdish in Turkey.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

69. And you don't want to be Basque in Spain

Seperatists who use violence never go over well with the government.

[rini]

89. Mr Conspicious Consumption

I actually have lived in Spain I knew Basques and the Basques are just fine there. Yes, I know about ETA, I know they want their own country, I also know they practice bombings and assassination, of course they don't target school children as you group does but then Basques are generally nice people.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. The crux of the argument

Is that you are attempting to rewrite history.

You can laugh all you want, but Israel continues to fight its enemies, many of whom want it destroyed and Jews wiped from the earth. Some of those enemies are literally following in the family footsteps of those who sided with the Axis during WWII.

As for victim status, the Jews are the most oppressed group in the history of the world. THAT is victim status. The fact that NOTHING they can do other than total surrender will ever appease their enemies colors the debate more than a tad.

You criticize Israel for protecting land taken in a war that it didn't start and held to keep it from losing the inevitable next war. You hold Israel to a standard that no other nation in the world lives up to. Every nation has been in conflict, has settled its borders in blood. Only Israel is supposed to return that land.

OK, I try not to mock ignorance, but you don't reap "what you sew," unless you are a seamstress.

"It just doesn't matter who is worse than who once you are below a certain point."

This is a foolish argument. There are always degrees. Stalin was a murdering bastard, but he was better than Hitler so the U.S. and Britain backed him up. Israel is about 100,000% better than its enemies, yet you see no difference. Years after the Cold War ended, the moral equivalency argument thrives.

"Anti-semitism in the Arab world is almost purely tied to the existence of Zionism. It is a reaction to the perception that Arabs have of being attacked."

Oh, so the previous two thousand years of anti-semitism were due to what exactly?

"Turkey, on the other hand is markedly better than Israel."

Tell that to the Kurds. And, of course, no one is threatening to push Turkey into the sea.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

78. "the Jews are the most oppressed group in the history of the world."

No, they are not. Jews are ONE of the only surviving oppressed groups in the history of the world.

Most of the oppressed groups throughout history have been completely anihilated or completely absorbed. The oppression of the Jews may have gone on longer than most, but only because, on the whole, the Jewish people are strong, tenatious survivors able to adapt and succeed in a variety of cultures.

It is just silly and morbid to start comparing holocausts and genocides and putting Jews in the "privileged" postion.

What about the slavery of Africans in the West? On pure numbers, the Africans "win"? What about East Timor? On percentage of the popluation, the East Timorese "win". What about the slavery and genocide of the Incas, the Mayans, the Native North Americans? What about the Basques or the Gypsies?

Furthermore the tragedy of Jewish history doesn't confer the right to deny other people fundamental rights or to claim already occupied land.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. I can't believe you dispute this

Jews have been invaded, enslaved, murdered and chased from nation to nation for thousands of years. They have survived the butchery of pogrom, Inquisition and Holocaust and now are surrounded by an endless stream of oil-powered enemies.

Yes, they are tenacious survivors, despite the best that their enemies try to do.

Well, as a descendent of thos African slaves, I think I know what I'm talking about here. Four hundred years is a horrifying tragedy, but American slave owners were amateurs compared to the Nazis and their ilk. By sheer length of time and number of horrifying circumstances, the Jews are easily the most victimized, not that it is a competition any group would wish to win.

As for "already occupied land," take a look UNDER the Dome of the Rock and let me know what you see there. It's the Temple of Solomon. Already occupied is right, occupied by the Jewish people. They are back in charge now and are NOT going away.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

82. Wrong, wrong, wrong

"Jews have been invaded, enslaved, murdered and chased from nation to nation for thousands of years. They have survived the butchery of pogrom, Inquisition and Holocaust and now are surrounded by an endless stream of oil-powered enemies."

Not arguing.


"Four hundred years is a horrifying tragedy, but American slave owners were amateurs compared to the Nazis and their ilk. By sheer length of time and number of horrifying circumstances, the Jews are easily the most victimized, not that it is a competition any group would wish to win."

The Nazis were only actively kiling Jews for 4 years. 100 times less time than the murderous slave trade and inhuman conditions Africans in North AND South America lived in. 4 years cannot destroy a people. 400 years without education, forcibly seperated from their families, beaten, broken and treated like animals with ruin the proudest and most gentle of peoples.

Jewish oppression has gone on for thousands of years, yes, but in sheer numbers of murdered people, cultural genocide and the active destruction of a people Slavery of Africans and Native South Americans takes the cake.

Furthermore, I find this whole argument of who "wins" the title of "most oppressed people" disgusting and nothing changes the fact that oppression is oppression whether it is done by a previously oppressed people or not.

"As for "already occupied land," take a look UNDER the Dome of the Rock and let me know what you see there. "

Okay, so you are arguing that Native Americans (who were in North American tens of thousands of years before the Jewish people INVADED and CONQUERED the biblical Israel) have a right to all the land in North America. Are you willing to give up your house to them? Are you willing to vacate your property? Would you fight if they tried to forcibly move you off your land? If they bulldozed your home for "security reasons"?

Is that what you are arguing?

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Wrong...

As an aside, no nation is, "an international Democratic zone open to all people regardless of religious or ethnic heritage." Every nation picks and chooses its immigrants.

No other democratic nations picks and choosees its immigrants based on religious or ethnic heritage. Some nations in the past have picked its immigrants based on skin colour, but thankfully those days are long gone...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. By national origin

All the time and, by doing so, that implies ethnicity. If you are from Western Europe, your chances increase of getting into the U.S. for instance.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

70. No, not over certain asian countries

A white, unemployed factory worker from Germany is going to have a much harder time gaining a work visa to the US than a Hindu programmer from East India.

Also, Western Europe doesn't imply anglo-saxon heritage. There is a large a immigrant population in Western Europe.

i.e. - you don't have to be born of a teutonic mother in order to be considered "German". And children born of a teutonic mother aren't automatically granted citizenship in Germany.

[rini]

85. pick & choose

have you forgotten your own beloved country?

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Read my post...

I actually covered it and any others that were like it when I said: ' Some nations in the past have picked its immigrants based on skin colour, but thankfully those days are long gone...' Now, if you want to sit there and try to tell me that the White Australia Policy still exists, yr going to end up making a bit of a fool of yrself...

Violet...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

34. AGAIN

"They should complain to the ARAB nations that invaded and started the war, not Israel."


All of the Arab popluation in "Israel" before 1948 would have either been transferred or denied citizenship in order to create a Jewish state - war or no war.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Partition allowed for a Palestinian state too

Only the Arab invasion sort of eliminated THAT option.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

49. How did it "eliminate" that option?

The surrounding Arab states saw the emergence of a Jewish state as a destabilzing threat. Politics, not anti-semitism, was the motive for the 1948 war.

Israel required a Jewish majority. There was no Jewish majority in 1948 within the borders created by the UN. The Arab population within Israeli borders would have been transferred out of Israel to the "Palestinian State" or denied Israeli citizenship in order to secure a Jewish state.

Israel also would've required the water resources beneath the "Palestinian State" created by the UN.

There is no legitimate reason why, after winning the 1948 war, Israel didn't honor the UN borders. The option was "eliminated" by the Israeli government and not the surrounding Arab countires.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. You missed one

Survival.

The Arab neighbors made it clear that a disconnected Israel would not survive for long. Israel, as nations have done throughout history, kept the land it acquired during the conflict for security reasons. And it had plenty of those.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

53. Ah, security reasons...

Where is the threat now?

From Egypt - not likely

From Syria - don't make me laugh

From Jordon - idiotic

From Lebanon - sorry

From Turkey - don't insult me

From Iraq - please

From Saudi Arabia - no a chance in hell


Where is your "security threat" now? Obviously that excuse was pure bullshit and has gone out of fashion with the early 1990's and grunge music.

How about this reason that was very trendy in the 1950's - Israel has made better use of the land than the Arabs ever did so they were right in taking it. Do you like that one?

Or how about this reason from the Likud party platform - The Jewish people have an "eternal right" to the land of Israel including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza.

If that doesn't convince your friends and coworkers - Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and we must support it.



Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Glad you aren't in security

Because your threat assessment stinks.

From Egypt - Egypt has an ongoing anti-government, fundamental Muslim insurgency. If they ever take over, Egypt would be a perfect enemy, especially with all the cool weaponry they have.

From Syria - Syria already supports at least one ongoing terror group against Israel. That's kind of easy to expand on.

From Jordon - No, right now, I'll agree with Jordan.

From Lebanon - Lebanon houses a major security threat to Israel.

From Turkey - Not right now, given the rabid tide of Islamic fundamentalism, who knows.

From Iraq - You mean all of the random elements in Iraq ARE NOT a threat to Israel? You must read a different account of that situation.

From Saudi Arabia - They supply and support various terror groups and they aren't a threat?

You left out:

The PA: Arafat supports and condones terror attacks on Israel.

The infinite number of Palestinian terror groups -- nuff said.

How about, Israel is our ally and no other nation on that list is anywhere close.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. And you are??

Like, when you talk about not being in security, yr not talking about being a security guard or something like that, I hope? Yr talking about global security, right? Just curious, but what are yr credentials in that field? The NY Post?

Almost forgot to ask. Are you a neo-Realist? I'd think those guys would be really funny in a cute sort of way if their thinking wasn't so dangerous...


Violet...

[sushi]

94. I've been following your exchange

with ThorsteinVeblen with great interest.

Tell me, what, in your opinion, will it take for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians if Israel continous all its "for security reasons" actions?

Don't you think Israel has to dismantle all the settlements? Hasn't Saudi Arabia expressed its willingnesss to recognize Israel? Putting Israel on the Arab maps will come later. Wouldn't you agree that Jerusalem has to be shared? Would you also agree that military might will not bring peace to Israel?

[The Magistrate]

96. In 1948, Mr. Veblen

Neighboring Arab states coveted for themselves portions of Mandatory Palestine, and were as determined to prevent the emergence of a state of Arab Palestine as they were to prevent the establish of a Jewish state there. Syria coveted the Galilee and Jerusalem. Jordan's King Abdullah harbored a great animus against the Arab Palestinian leader Haj Amin, the Jerusalem Mufti. King Farouk of Egypt wanted the Negev, and as much of the coast as he might acquire.

In the Jewish zone established by gthe U.N. partition, there was a Jewish majority, albeit a slim one. Neither expulsion nor denial of citizenship would have been required, and continued immigration would have swiftly solidified that majority. In conditions of amicable peace, the question of water would have proved susceptible to trade: most questions of resource are.

The '48 war was settled by an armistice under U.N. auspices, and the line dividing the forces became the de facto border of Israel over the next several years, as no progress whatever was made in negotiating a peace. This was a mutual failure for which both sides may be fairly blamed, but for which no one side can.

[rini]

86. partition

A man of history, how nice to see not only reason but fact.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. Perpetual War...

Yeah! I just love the idea of Perpetual War at the end of which there might come a Perpetual Peace! ;)



Violet...

[ThorsteinVeblen]

24. An "Aryan State" easily prounounced in the U.S. would create as much fear.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

6. You want to talk sources?

Okay, let's see. Someone posts an article from the Palestine Chronicle and you respond with a bit of trash from Arutz Sheva. Let's compare sources. Arutz Sheva has a map of Israel that takes in the Occupied Territories as part of Israel. I've looked but I haven't found a map over at Palestine Chronicle that has a modern map of Palestine that takes in Israel as Palestine. Besides, wasn't it you who told me you thought Arutz Sheva was a load of crap? So trying to say both sources are the same is totally wrong. Trying to say that the Palestine Chronicle has a bias is okay, but they're not racist fascists the way Erutz Sheva is...

Violet...

[quilp]

90. When is "Israel" going to "draw a map" that includes "Palestine"?

So the problem is "Aesthetics'! It thought it was tanks, missiles, gunships, aircraft, machine guns and bulldozers. It isn't just the "Islamic world" that rejects "Israel". Most of the land it has grabbed has been in direction violation of International law. "Israel" just over fifty years ago was known to the whole world as Palestine.

You seem to think the "Islamic world" is one country.

[QuietStorm]

5. It was finished before it started.

[Herschel]

9. Dismantling terrorist organizations must be step one

All other plans will fail.

[Resistance]

12. ok, start with the IDF then?

[Darranar]

68. As I've mentioned before...

it is unfair to consider the IDF a terrorist organization. Since service is obligatory, both decent and indecent Israelis are part of it. Since not all, or even most, of Israelis are indecent, the IDF isn't a terrorist organization. Acts commited by IDF members in the past have indeed been terrorist acts, however.

[jos]

64. No

This is a war. Why should one side unilaterally disarm? Step one is for Israeli to end the occupation, turn over control temporarily to an international force, in return for an agreement by the Palestinians to end the violence. Then talks can proceed to a final agreement regarding a Palestinian state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Yes it's a war

Why should Israel surrender and get nothing in return?

If the Palestinians want actual peace, they would push forward on a peace proposal that:

* Creates a Palestinian state;
* Guarantees Israel security by committing to an aggressive campaign against terror;
* Gives up the right of return for compensation;
* Acknowledges they will never get Jewish Jerusalem;

[sushi]

97. Nobody says

Israel should surrender and get nothing in return!

If the Israelis want actual peace, they would dismantle all the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza (yes, I keep saying this), and share Jerusalem. Or maybe Jerusalem should be under UN control.
The only thing I agree with you is that it would be impossible for Israel to agree to the Right of Return of the Arab refugees.

With US help Israel is the strongest country in the Middle East. Nobody can drive them into the sea. What are they worried about?

[The Magistrate]

98. Reasonable Points, Sir

The question of Jerusalem is somewhat vexed, but your root suggestion of a trade of settlement liquidation for foreswearing repatriation of descendants of refugees is the outline of a solid peace.

[sushi]

99. Firstly, I'm an "F."

So many mistakes were made in the past. I say we stop arguing about the past and concentrate on the future. Where do we go from HERE.

The Palestinians need, should have, their own state, and the Israelis need, should feel, secure. It is obvious the two parties can't solve their problems on their own. They need even-handed outside help.
The question is are they getting even-handed outside help?

[sushi]

95. If step one is going to be successful

dismantling the settlements must be part of it.

[Jackie97]

46. What do you expect out of an American Politician?

As far as I'm concerned, he sold out the black people to be a part of the Republican party. Of course he sells out the Palestinians. I can't think of many American politicians who don't.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

83. They die for Allah,

that makes it right, you know...

:eyes: :puke: