Israel 60 years on: The Filth and the Fury

[Banquo's Ghost]

As the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel approaches, it might be interesting to reflect on how far she has sunk from her ideals. This opinion piece (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-israel-is-suppressing-a-secret-it-must-face-816661.html) is sobering.

Yes, Israel is a vibrant democracy in a sea of primitivism and yes, she was founded as a statement of hope against the backdrop of wanton wickedness unseen before. Yes, she faces an implacable enemy which seeks her erasure from history - even though her allies and her resolve have made this an impossible, as well as a repulsive aspiration.

So, utterly secure with international and internal military and economic force, democratic to a fault and with a unique history of withstanding the most evil discrimination from almost every quarter of the globe, how after sixty years has it come to this? Founded in terrorism and rebellion herself, with a remarkable ability for cold-hearted self-preservation against all odds, how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, however bastardised by extremists (of which Israel has plenty herself) that she perpetrates these endless acts of dehumanising wickedness?

Of all people in the world who should understand the Palestinians, how is it that Israel behaves in this manner and will not talk?

Johann Hari: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face


How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago end up throwing filth at cowering Palestinians?

When you hit your 60th birthday, most of you will guzzle down your hormone replacement therapy with a glass of champagne and wonder if you have become everything you dreamed of in your youth. In a few weeks, the state of Israel is going to have that hangover.

She will look in the mirror and think – I have a sore back, rickety knees and a gun at my waist, but I'm still standing. Yet somewhere, she will know she is suppressing an old secret she has to face. I would love to be able to crash the birthday party with words of reassurance. Israel has given us great novelists like Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, great film-makers like Joseph Cedar, great scientific research into Alzheimer's, and great dissident journalists like Amira Hass, Tom Segev and Gideon Levy to expose her own crimes.

She has provided the one lonely spot in the Middle East where gay people are not hounded and hanged, and where women can approach equality.

But I can't do it. Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of poo. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.

Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the poo started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..." He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.

Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way", the Israeli army are not allowing past the checkpoints any replacements for the pipes and cement needed to keep the sewage system working. The result? Vast stagnant pools of waste are being held within fragile dykes across the strip, and rotting. Last March, one of them burst, drowning a nine-month-old baby and his elderly grandmother in a tsunami of human waste. The Centre on Housing Rights warns that one heavy rainfall could send 1.5m cubic metres of faeces flowing all over Gaza, causing "a humanitarian and environmental disaster of epic proportions".

So how did it come to this? How did a Jewish state founded 60 years ago with a promise to be "a light unto the nations" end up flinging its filth at a cowering Palestinian population?

The beginnings of an answer lie in the secret Israel has known, and suppressed, all these years. Even now, can we describe what happened 60 years ago honestly and unhysterically? The Jews who arrived in Palestine throughout the twentieth century did not come because they were cruel people who wanted to snuffle out Arabs to persecute. No: they came because they were running for their lives from a genocidal European anti-Semitism that was soon to slaughter six million of their sisters and their sons.

They convinced themselves that Palestine was "a land without people for a people without land". I desperately wish this dream had been true. You can see traces of what might have been in Tel Aviv, a city that really was built on empty sand dunes. But most of Palestine was not empty. It was already inhabited by people who loved the land, and saw it as theirs. They were completely innocent of the long, hellish crimes against the Jews.

When it became clear these Palestinians would not welcome becoming a minority in somebody else's country, darker plans were drawn up. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, wrote in 1937: "The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war."

So, for when the moment arrived, he helped draw up Plan Dalit. It was – as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it – "a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; and laying siege to and bombarding population centres". In 1948, before the Arab armies invaded, this began to be implemented: some 800,000 people were ethnically cleansed, and Israel was built on the ruins. The people who ask angrily why the Palestinians keep longing for their old land should imagine an English version of this story. How would we react if the 30m stateless, persecuted Kurds in the world sent armies and settlers into this country to seize everything in England below Leeds, and swiftly established a free Kurdistan from which we were expelled? Wouldn't we long forever for our children to return to Cornwall and Devon and London? Would it take us only 40 years to compromise and offer to settle for just 22 per cent of what we had?

If we are not going to be endlessly banging our heads against history, the Middle East needs to excavate 1948, and seek a solution. Any peace deal – even one where Israel dismantled the wall and agreed to return to the 1967 borders – tends to crumple on this issue. The Israelis say: if we let all three million come back, we will be outnumbered by Palestinians even within the 1967 borders, so Israel would be voted out of existence. But the Palestinians reply: if we don't have an acknowledgement of the Naqba (catastrophe), and our right under international law to the land our grandfathers fled, how can we move on?

It seemed like an intractable problem – until, two years ago, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research conducted the first study of the Palestinian Diaspora's desires. They found that only 10 per cent – around 300,000 people – want to return to Israel proper. Israel can accept that many (and compensate the rest) without even enduring much pain. But there has always been a strain of Israeli society that preferred violently setting its own borders, on its own terms, to talk and compromise. This weekend, the elected Hamas government offered a six-month truce that could have led to talks. The Israeli government responded within hours by blowing up a senior Hamas leader and killing a 14-year-old girl.

Perhaps Hamas' proposals are a con; perhaps all the Arab states are lying too when they offer Israel full recognition in exchange for a roll-back to the 1967 borders; but isn't it a good idea to find out? Israel, as she gazes at her grey hairs and discreetly ignores the smell of her own stale poo pumped across Palestine, needs to ask what kind of country she wants to be in the next 60 years.

NB: The above copy is edited to comply with forum rules on language. Click on the link to read the original article.

[Vladimir]

NB: The above copy is edited to comply with forum rules on language. Click on the link to read the original article.

And that language alone is enough to indicate the veracity of the article. :juggle2:


Meanwhile, in order to punish the population of Gaza for voting "the wrong way"

Is he serious? I guess the Germans voted the wrong way too huh?

[HoreTore]

democratic to a fault

Democratic to a fault?

I don't consider the treatment of Vanunu to be in line with democratic ideals.

[Vladimir]

Democratic to a fault?

I don't consider the treatment of Vanunu to be in line with democratic ideals.

The spy (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007920058846755153710%3Aq2rwdklpiv4&cof=FORID%3A0&q=Vanunu&sa=Search+CI+Centre).

[HoreTore]

The spy (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=007920058846755153710%3Aq2rwdklpiv4&cof=FORID%3A0&q=Vanunu&sa=Search+CI+Centre).

Spy...?

He's a whistleblower, and I daresay the most important whistleblower in history.

[Adrian II]

Founded in terrorism and rebellion herself, with a remarkable ability for cold-hearted self-preservation against all odds, how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, however bastardised by extremists (of which Israel has plenty herself) that she perpetrates these endless acts of dehumanising wickedness?I think the short answer is: religion.

The somewhat longer answer would be this. Israel was built by Socialists and secular Zionists and it was a successful modern, democratic state as long as their views prevailed. Even after the 1967 occupation of Palestinian territories, these territories were considered bargaining chips by a majority of Israelis, not rightful possessions promised to the Jews by some Prophet or mere buffer zones populated by subhumans.

By the end of the 1970's a religiously inspired, expansionist policy took hold and Israel virtually refused to negotiate except with those nations (such as Egypt and Jordan) that were prepared to live with the fact of the occupation, albeit under protest. The occupied territories came to be regarded as land promised to Israel by the sky-God. David Ben-Gurion foresaw the horrible consequences for Israel itself and pleaded for a return of all the occupied territories apart from Jerusalem. His words were not heeded. The violence required to suppress the territories ate away at Israeli democracy, turned inward and resulted in the murder of Rabin, the last of the heroic generation, by a religious nutjob who had never done anything worthwhile for his country. I remember signing the register of condolance and speaking to an Israeli diplomat whom I knew well, and who was privately foaming at the mouth and cursing the Likud: "Why do they think we built Israel? To turn it into another ******* Pakistan!?"

I am very pessimistic as to Israel's capacity to regenerate in this respect. I think the guy was right, the religious rot has gone deep and Israel is in serious danger of deteriorating into a sort of Jewish Pakistan, a quasi-democracy with semi-autonomous zones dominated by religious fanatics who have a hold over the political center.

I have always pleaded for a wholesale international approach to the Middle East conflict, with negotiations involving all major global powers and all local players, resulting in a framework intended to settle all major differences. It might take ten years to get the first results, but the previous fifty have shown that peacemeal approaches are bound to fail. The reason is that as soon as one enemy is neutralized through successful negociations, religious and ethnic fanaticism always finds another 'threat' to concentrate its fear and hatred on. This goes for all sides, obviously, not just for Israel. Idiots abound on both sides in that unfortunate region.

[Vladimir]

Spy...?

He's a whistleblower, and I daresay the most important whistleblower in history.


https://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1627/hyperboleke7.jpg

[HoreTore]

Hyperbole, Vladimir?

Could you perhaps enlighten me about a more important whistleblower in history...?

[Beirut]

Good article. Nice to hear from someone who has the guts to tell the truth.

[KukriKhan]

The violence required to suppress the territories ate away at Israeli democracy, turned inward...

Just wanted to note this gleaming gem of truth, lest it be out-shone by the rest of that brilliant post.

[Viking]

Spy...?

He's a whistleblower, and I daresay the most important whistleblower in history.

Yet, sadly, the Norwegian gov rejected his request for asylum.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Good article. Nice to hear from someone who has the guts to tell the truth.

Did you read this? (http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20080423_11237_11237)

[HoreTore]

Yet, sadly, the Norwegian gov rejected his request for asylum.

Yes. And the reason was political, no less. Damn conservatives...

Hopefully, he will try again while we still have this government.

[Dîn-Heru]

And damn socialists for selling the heavy water in the first place..

:shame:

The government has had 4 years to do something about it, and if it had not been for BT dragging the case back into the limelight, they would easily have gone the rest of the term without doing something about it...

(PS: He has apparently refiled his application, so we'll see if your faith in the current government is justified or not..) http://www.imemc.org/article/54132

[Adrian II]

Vanunu wasn't a spy, but he was a traitor and the Israeli government had to set an example. Vanunu was at liberty to criticise his government all he wanted, not to divulge some of its most important military secrets.

If Vanunu had wanted to criticise Israel's nuclear program, he could have referred to the wealth of information that was already in the public domain.

[Viking]

Vanunu wasn't a spy, but he was a traitor and the Israeli government had to set an example. Vanunu was at liberty to criticise his government all he wanted, not to divulge some of its most important military secrets.

If Vanunu had wanted to criticise Israel's nuclear program, he could have referred to the wealth of information that was already in the public domain.

A traitor? Oh blimey, that's how the German scumbags of die Weiße Rose should be treated also. https://img106.imageshack.us/img106/5410/52cfde53a138461c8a74c41fe9.gif

[Adrian II]

A traitor? Oh blimey, that's how the German scumbags of die Weiße Rose should be treated also. https://img106.imageshack.us/img106/5410/52cfde53a138461c8a74c41fe9.gifThe mere fact that you think there is the slightest basis for such comparisons shows that you haven't a clue.

[Viking]

The mere fact that you think there is the slightest basis for such comparisons shows that you haven't a clue.

Oh yes, the term 'traitor' is a worthless as the US dollar is nowadays. That's what the comparison shows. :idea:

[Vladimir]

Pretty much sums it up for me:


https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1935/childrenasshieldsmh6.gif

Is it art?

[Adrian II]

Oh yes, the term 'traitor' is a worthless as the US dollar is nowadays. That's what the comparison shows. :idea:The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.

In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.

[HoreTore]

The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.

A traitor to his country, a hero to the world.

It's not like he released top secret plans against invasion or anything like that. He revealed a bleedin' nuclear program, something that should not even exist in this world at all. He did us all a favour. Who cares if he got a few bucks for it?


In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.

Bah. He poses no real threat to israel, and they know it. Public embarrassment is the worst he can do, and last I checked, civilized countries don't jail people for embarrassment.

I guess if some iranian scientist releases hard proof of an iranian nuclear bomb-program tomorrow, you would cheer when he is hanged by the government, Adrian...?


(PS: He has apparently refiled his application, so we'll see if your faith in the current government is justified or not..) http://www.imemc.org/article/54132

The immigration minister stated that if he would get a job here, he will be accepted. But to be honest, that's a lot of bull and utterly irrelevant. The immigration department abides by the laws of the land, not the whims of the politicians, as it should be(well, at least they used to work like that, after the manuela "scandal" I'm not sure anymore). And as such, they will of course accept his application. The real question is whether or not some idiot minister will play the "national security card" and throw him out again. It will be very hard to do that for anyone atm, but I wouldn't be surprised...

(btw, not sure where you conservatives get your maths skills, but it isn't election time yet, the current government has only been in charge for 2,5 years so far ~;) )

[Viking]

The term is well defined and applies to Vanunu. He violated the terms of the Dimona security clearance which he signed and he breached the trust of the nation that he worked for. And he did so for the sum of $100,000, not out of a guilty conscience.

In his prison letters to the outside world he made detailed sketches of Dimona and wrote alongside them 'I'll fill you in on the details when I'm freed'. That's why he was put into solitary confinement. Vanunu is very lucky that he didn't get the death penalty.

That it is well defined there's no doubt about; like many other terms which few nowadays pay heed to (in our belowed Europe, anyhow). Like heretic. He betrayed a country; no big deal in itself. A real traitor is a traitor against humanity; Vanunu is not.



Pretty much sums it up for me:


https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1935/childrenasshieldsmh6.gif

Is it art?


Oh, but Israel is far from clean. ~:rolleyes:

[Adrian II]

A traitor to his country, a hero to the world.A hero? To the entire world no less?

Only the loony left considers him a hero, and the loony left has many worthless heroes. Mordechai Vanunu, in turn, has only loony supporters. Well alright, except Susannah York, the renowned analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. Oh, and dr Mia Farrow, professor of Political Science at Hollywood University.
:coffeenews:

[Tribesman]

Pretty much sums it up for me:


Spoiler Alert, click show to read:


Is it art?


That view can be summed up by the word bollox .

[HoreTore]

A hero? To the entire world no less?

Only the loony left considers him a hero, and the loony left has many worthless heroes. Mordechai Vanunu, in turn, has only loony supporters. Well alright, except Susannah York, the renowned analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. Oh, and dr Mia Farrow, professor of Political Science at Hollywood University.
:coffeenews:

Actually, the only ones I've ever heard call him a traitor before are our very own right-wing nutters(and I mean real nutters, they'd make the republicans look like lefties).

Anyway Adrian, you support the notion that countries should have the right to develop nuclear bombs in complete secrecy? You don't consider it your right to know when your government is making weaponry that can wipe out the population of the earth...?

National security can go to hell on that one. If my government is doing something like that, I see it as my bloody right to know so.

Calling Vanunu a threat to national security is about as ridiculous as calling the guy who exposed Abu Ghraib a threat to national security. But no wait, the Abu Ghraib scandal *did* cost the lives of quite a few soldiers due to increased guerilla attacks. What Vanunu did has resulted in what? Was it "ABSOLUTELY NOT A SINGLE THING" you said? Then how on earth can it be a matter of national security if it didn't cause a single attack on israel?

[Adrian II]

Actually, the only ones I've ever heard call him a traitor before are our very own right-wing nutters(and I mean real nutters, they'd make the republicans look like lefties).

Anyway Adrian, you support the notion that countries should have the right to develop nuclear bombs in complete secrecy? You don't consider it your right to know when your government is making weaponry that can wipe out the population of the earth...?

National security can go to hell on that one. If my government is doing something like that, I see it as my bloody right to know so.

Calling Vanunu a threat to national security is about as ridiculous as calling the guy who exposed Abu Ghraib a threat to national security.The Israeli public and the outside world have been aware since the early 1960's that Israel was developing nuclear weapons. Not only has the Israeli public fully incorporated this knowledge, it has also been aware since the early 1970's of Israel's declared policy of 'nuclear opacity' which was deemed to be in its best interest at the time. And yes, Israel has every right to develop such weapons. And yes, they already helped save the country once from annihilation.

Do you know how that came about? And if it was before or after Vanunu's revelations?

[HoreTore]

And yes, Israel has every right to develop such weapons. And yes, they already helped save the country once from annihilation.

Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.

A nuclear bomb has but one single purpose: the complete destruction of civilian life. It has no other use whatsoever. Who's going to use a nuclear bomb to take out an enemy position, like a bunker? That's like shooting birds with a cannon. The only use Israel has of a nuclear bomb, is to obliterate cities like Kairo and Damascus in the event of an attack. And no, I do not consider it Israel's(or any other countries) right to blow up a million civilians.

But what was the consequences of Vanunu's "horrible crime"...? I can't see a single thing that has happened, except embarrassment, half of which comes from the israeli governments totalitarian and despotic way of dealing with him(secret courts are a blast in a civilized court system!:smash: ).

[Dîn-Heru]

(btw, not sure where you conservatives get your maths skills, but it isn't election time yet, the current government has only been in charge for 2,5 years so far ~;) )

Hehe, I realised that a bit later, but the decsion was made in 2004, and that was where I counted from. The only critique I found in the big papers from 2004 was a sentance from Haga, who was then in Utenrikskomiteen and Willoch.

It was not a descision made in secret, if the current government felt so strongly about it the decision could have been overturned on day one 2,5 years ago..

(Ps I personally could not care less about whether they let him in or not, but you should not be so quick to lambast the former government, when yours have not done anything besides maybe a few chummy words with about their concern with the Israeli ambassador..)

[HoreTore]

Hehe, I realised that a bit later, but the decsion was made in 2004, and that was where I counted from. The only critique I found in the big papers from 2004 was a sentance from Haga, who was then in Utenrikskomiteen and Willoch.

Your searching skills are inferior then. SV was hysterical at the time.


It was not a descision made in secret, if the current government felt so strongly about it the decision could have been overturned on day one 2,5 years ago..

It *was* a decision made in secret, which was exposed by BT this year. Or rather, the real decision was secret. It's a good thing Erna only lied and deceived about the life of a human and not a couple of blowjobs(the thought of which make me shudder), or else she might have faced impeachment...

And you know our political system just as well as I do; thinking that any of them will do anything unless they're given a good push(in vanunu's case, sending an asylum application) ~;). And since nobody has pushed the current government yet, nothing has happened... it might though.


(Ps I personally could not care less about whether they let him in or not, but you should not be so quick to lambast the former government, when yours have not done anything besides maybe a few chummy words with about their concern with the Israeli ambassador..)

Bah, I reserve the right to lambast, ridicule and hate the former incompetent idiots without any reason or justification whatsoever :beam:

[Dîn-Heru]

SV is always hysterical, I thought that was a given ~;), but I did not see any articles when I searched the sites of VG, Dagbladet and Aftenposten. (But you are right, I found an interview with Halvorsen when I searched again with reference to SV.)

Yes, she used here right as a minister to set aside a recommendation from UDI. Was it a wise decision? Who knows? Perhaps not the most humanitarian there ever was, but the conceerns of one individual does not always come first in international politics..

Bjarne Håkon Hansen did exactly the same as Erna by the way: http://www.bt.no/innenriks/article546040.ece


And you know our political system just as well as I do; thinking that any of them will do anything unless they're given a good push(in vanunu's case, sending an asylum application) . And since nobody has pushed the current government yet, nothing has happened... it might though.

True, except that the push is not him sending a new application, but that the media has decided to put this matter on the current agenda..

Just out of curiosity. If he is granted asylum, do you think he would be allowed to leave Israel? What should we do if they refuse to let him leave?

[Adrian II]

Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.You keep changing the topic. I have demonstrated that the Israeli public was long aware of the nuclear weapons program, so now you switch to another topic: why do they need them?

And you don't know the answer to my question, do you? It answers your own question as well because it shows that they do need them.

It was during the Yom Kippur war, a full thirteen years before Vanunu spoke to The Sunday Times. On day 2 of that war (8 October, 1973) when the combined Egyptian-Syrian force was advancing rapidly, Israel put eight nuclear-armed F-4's and a series of nuclear missile launchers on alert and notified both the Russians and the Americans of this. The purpose was dual: to persuade the Russians into restraining their two Arab allies on the ground, and to persuade the Americans into sending large-scale military supplies to Israel. The threat was effective. Without it, Israel would have been in major military trouble to say the least.

And it invalidates your statement that a nuclear bomb has only one purpose: that of annihilation. Its main use (as has been demonstrated once again above) is its threat of annihilation, not annihulation itself.

You ask what Vanunu's crime was. His crime was that of violating his security clearance and the trust of his nation. Even if he told the world little that was new, the Israeli government was perfectly right that the decision to divulge it was not Vanunu's. And if they let this one go unpunished, the next possible traitor would divulge even more, and so on. Vanunu had to be made an example of.

The trouble with loony lefties is that when they call for 'negotiations' in the Middle East, they have no idea where to start because they have no clue what the issues are that must negotiated. They have no notion of the true nature of conflict, no notion of the nature and history of this particular conflict, and they don't care if they do. They think good intentions alone are sufficient. That's all very well if you live in a beautiful, peaceful Norwegian fjord. But it leaves you totally unaware of (and unprepared for) the harsh measures that are sometimes necessary in a country like Israel in order to confront even harsher realities, resulting from a state of semi-war that has now lasted for almost precisely sixty years.

The Vanunu thingy is only a minute detail in this bigger frame, but the many naive notions about it are so revealing about peoples' lack of insight or imagination. Let me just mention two aspects that Vanunu's tiny band of supporters never address simply because they don't occur to them.

1. You say Vanunu was telling the world nothing new, nothing truly revealing. The fact of the matter is that he didn't know what he was doing. Vanunu was interviewed extensively in 1986 by Frank Barnaby, an well-known internatioanal expert on nuclear armament, who then wrote a declaration (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/barnaby.pdf) about that interview. One of his conclusions was that Vanunu, having been a mere technician in Dimona, did not understand some of the things he had revealed and had 'no idea of their importance'. Well, surprise surprise if that isn't a main reason why security clearances are necessary and why their breach is so serious. People with clearance see all sorts of things they don't understand and that is why they are expected to shut the **** up in the first place.

2. One of the things Vanunu divulged was the routes taken by his former colleagues to travel to and from Dimona. And not only was he endangering them, he was also exposing himself to undue scrutiny. Before the Mossad got hold of him, Vanunu might have been kidnapped by one of the better Arab intelligence services (probably the Syrians) who could have pumped him for everything else he knew before they sent him swimming in the Mediterranean with concrete flippers on.

[HoreTore]

Of course I know that, Adrian. You do, however, conveniently "forget" to mention the Samson option.

However, let's say history took another turn: the threat was ignored. Nixon stayed his hand, and the russkies laughed all the way to their own red button.

What then? Israel had planes with armed nuclear bombs flying about. Is it really unrealistic that one or more of those would've ended up in a population centre?

Are we really willing to allow another Hiroshima? There have been a lot of very close encounters involving nuclear bombs. We've been lucky a long time now, I see absolutely no need to push our luck. Cairo has some 7 million inhabitants. Is that the price you're willing to pay?

Israel may want them. They may even need them. But in the interest of humanity, they can't have them. Israel can and have defended themselves more than adequately using conventional weaponry. Would they have lost the Yom Kippur war without the bomb? Of course not, why would they? They won a complete victory at sea on the second day of the war and they were mostly winning on the ground. Would the US have supported them still? Probably. Anyway, the war was turned before they received a significant amount of supplies. The supplies started arriving on 14th october., the syrians were beaten back on the 11th, the egyptians on the 16th. A make or brake? Certainly not. Russia then? There are claims that, after seeing the Israeli bombs, they sent a ship carrying soviet bombs to egypt as a guarantee to alexandria, although it remained there without unloading through the war. That would have been a terrific outcome, wouldn't it? All it would take for a complete armageddon was one israeli pilot disregarding orders and dropping a bomb, and BOOM, the egyptians would fire back, and so on. At least that would be an end to the war, the drawback is that there wouldn't be many people left to see the peace, of course. But that's acceptable to you, isn't it? And remember, the soviets sent(or at least, there are claims that they did) their bombs after they discovered Israels bombs. Without Israels bomb, there wouldn't have been any soviet bombs around.

As to Vanunu's crime; Meh. Sure, punish him. But 18 years in prison, of which 11 of those in isolation, and punishment even after he was released? Not even close to a fair punishment. And how can you say that he had to be made an example of? He is to be punished not because of his violation, but because other people may violate them too? He is to be a martyr for the sins of others? Sorry, this isn't what I call a civilized legal system.

But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb? Iran is under threat of an invasion, surely they should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb to prevent that from happening?

[Beirut]

Pretty much sums it up for me:


https://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1935/childrenasshieldsmh6.gif

Is it art?


It's not art, it's a joke. Israel kills lots of children. They've also targeted children for beatings and torture. There are videos of Israeli soldiers holding down Palestinian children and smashing them with rocks in order to break their bones. The soldiers were following government directives. Nice.

I'm inclined to say that Israel has probably killed (far) more children than any of it's "uncivilized" neighbours. If someone would care to correct me, I will be glad to listen.

[FactionHeir]

I wish the main stream media showed a more balanced view of the conflict then. All you tend to see is Palestinians being portrayed as the bad guys and Israelis as the ones on the defensive, with exception of their daily airstrikes or "arrests" (you could call them kidnappings) of Palestinians on Palestinian land. And even those are portrayed as if they had been legitimate.

[drone]

But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb? Iran is under threat of an invasion, surely they should be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb to prevent that from happening?
Iran is a signatory of the NPT, Israel is not. If Iran decides to leave the treaty in the proper manner, they can do what they want (after the diplomatic firestorm).

[Adrian II]

Are we really willing to allow another Hiroshima?Of course we are. Nuclear deterrence will not work if we are not prepared to use the buggers. Welcome to reality.
Anyway, the war was turned before they received a significant amount of supplies.That's right, it turned because the Soviets and the Americans got the message. The Soviets warned the Egyptians (who then warned the Syrians) that they'd better not push their luck. And the fact that massive American supplies were on their way was enough to allow the IDF to use what they had left and go on the offensive.
Israel may want them. They may even need them. But in the interest of humanity, they can't have them.Do you realise what you are stating there? They may need them, yet they can't have them. In the interest of humanity no less. After all that happened to Jews in the last century, do you honestly think Israelis will dismantle their nuclear capability, sit with their arms crossed and wait for humanity to come through for them?
As to Vanunu's crime; Meh. Sure, punish him.He has been punished. And Israelis who consider a similar proposition will think twice before they act.
Sorry, this isn't what I call a civilized legal system.Yes, Israel is so uncivilized.
But anyway Adrian, using your arguments, I am sure that you support an Iranian bomb?I have defended the Iranian bomb in this forum time and again. I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations. After all, everyone wants to be a David, no one wants to be a Samson.

[HoreTore]

I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations.

In that we will have to agree to disagree.

However, I'm a little dazed at how you can describe my view of not wanting any nuclear weapons at all as a fairy dream by rabid loonies as opposed to your own realistic plan of truth and justice...

I do believe that the more likely result of your approach will be some idiot/rabid madman/religious nutjob/incomptent fool/evil bastard screwing up and dropping a bomb where it shouldn't be and starting a nuclear armageddon. But still, I don't call you a "loony rightie" ~;)

[Adrian II]

I do believe that the more likely result of your approach will be some idiot/rabid madman/religious nutjob/incomptent fool/evil bastard screwing up and dropping a bomb where it shouldn't be and starting a nuclear armageddon.There is always that possibility. I guess you could call it a 'calculated risk'. The calculation runs thus: as long as there are madman in charge of nations, we had better be prepared and make sure they can never harm us without harming themselves, i.e. without an assured punishment in kind. It's the language of death, I know. People are that way. Madmen certainly are.

I think madmen thrive on conflicts of the kind that rage in the Middle East. We can (help) remove the madmen only if we solve the conflicts, and we can solve the conflicts only if all of the main parties feel safe and secure in the knowledge that they are all Samsons.
But still, I don't call you a "loony rightie" ~;)And I respect that. I considered calling you a 'loony leftie', but stopped short. Some of your notions are certainly loony left and I called you on them. Consider it tit-for-tat for your use of 'ridiculous'. :wink2:

Anyway, good to have these debates, mate. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Collectively, we have all been rather lucky that Hiroshima was so well photographed before, during and after. I have long suspected that only the amazing degree of "oh ****" response generated by that has served to really deter the use of nuclear weapons since.

Adrian has been correct on a number of points HT.

Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.

Deterrence works. Deterrence is a product of capability and will. To truly deter someone, they must know you possess the capability and they must believe you would -- at least given certain circumstances -- use that capability. In 1973, Israel did just that.



In the long run, however, I think it is a certainty that we will see nuclear weapons used over the course of the next 50 years. Too many nation states with too many varied abilities at maintaining secure control of such devices are acquiring them. Human history says that no weapon is too terrible to use. Moreover, the prevalence of non-government "actors" in international affairs -- who have no allegiance to a piece of ground that must be protected -- speaks poorly for deterrence to stay effective. Such actors may well doubt both the will of the extent nuclear powers to fight tough AND their capability to hit an emphemeral target.

Actually, I've been wondering if half the point of the Iraq conflict is to make the other side aware we're willing to bleed and die for our side of it and thereby earn enough "points" for deterrence to work. Sad thought that.

[Redleg]

Ridiculous. Israel can exist perfectly well with just conventional weaponry.

A nuclear bomb has but one single purpose: the complete destruction of civilian life. It has no other use whatsoever. Who's going to use a nuclear bomb to take out an enemy position, like a bunker? That's like shooting birds with a cannon. The only use Israel has of a nuclear bomb, is to obliterate cities like Kairo and Damascus in the event of an attack. And no, I do not consider it Israel's(or any other countries) right to blow up a million civilians.


How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.

Now I could tell you a whole lot about them - but not today. But I will give you a hint - do a little research on battlefield nuclear weapons - especially field artillery ones.

[Redleg]

Collectively, we have all been rather lucky that Hiroshima was so well photographed before, during and after. I have long suspected that only the amazing degree of "oh ****" response generated by that has served to really deter the use of nuclear weapons since.

Actually I believe it was a good thing the bombs were used in cities built primarily of wood. It allowed for the fireball and blast to create so much more damage then what would of happened in a concrete, brick city of Europe. You ever see the picture of the brick building that was at ground zero?




Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.

Yes indeed - one might think he did a great service for the world, but it does not mean he did not betray his nation.



Deterrence works. Deterrence is a product of capability and will. To truly deter someone, they must know you possess the capability and they must believe you would -- at least given certain circumstances -- use that capability. In 1973, Israel did just that.

I agree




In the long run, however, I think it is a certainty that we will see nuclear weapons used over the course of the next 50 years. Too many nation states with too many varied abilities at maintaining secure control of such devices are acquiring them. Human history says that no weapon is too terrible to use. Moreover, the prevalence of non-government "actors" in international affairs -- who have no allegiance to a piece of ground that must be protected -- speaks poorly for deterrence to stay effective. Such actors may well doubt both the will of the extent nuclear powers to fight tough AND their capability to hit an emphemeral target.

What's even scarier is the ability to create a dirty bomb that while not as destructive can create some pretty bad radaition posioned zones.


Actually, I've been wondering if half the point of the Iraq conflict is to make the other side aware we're willing to bleed and die for our side of it and thereby earn enough "points" for deterrence to work. Sad thought that.

I dont think this is to far off the point given a review of the build-up to the conflict and the logical failures in execution of the war in Iraq. But then that might be giving to much credit to the ability to plan - versus the more likely the real situation of just incompentence at the beginning. But the President often totes no attack on the United States itself since 9/11.

[Viking]

2. Before the Mossad got hold of him, Vanunu might have been kidnapped by one of the better Arab intelligence services (probably the Syrians) who could have pumped him for everything else he knew before they sent him swimming in the Mediterranean with concrete flippers on.

But? -->


I have defended the Iranian bomb in this forum time and again. I think nuclear proliferation in the region will increase security for all, even for Israel. It will take some time, but if proliferation persists parties will sooner or later recognize the need for real negotiations. After all, everyone wants to be a David, no one wants to be a Samson.




They have no notion of the true nature of conflict, no notion of the nature and history of this particular conflict, and they don't care if they do. They think good intentions alone are sufficient. That's all very well if you live in a beautiful, peaceful Norwegian fjord. But it leaves you totally unaware of (and unprepared for) the harsh measures that are sometimes necessary in a country like Israel in order to confront even harsher realities, resulting from a state of semi-war that has now lasted for almost precisely sixty years.

How good is it not to see that Israelis know what to do; if HT was in charge the Israel-Palestine conflict would probably still be going strong.



Vanunu was a traitor. The term traitor, in this context, presumes that one owes ones loyalty to one's country -- which is still the most common definition in use. He revealed national secrets -- for compensation -- that he had sworn not to reveal. You may think this traitorous behavior was worthwhile on some larger level, but it doesn't change the nature of what was done.

Yes, he was a traitor.


How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.

If it were the bunker designed nuclear warheads that were the most frightening.

[Adrian II]

But? --> I guess I could play the 'Huh? Me no understand'- card here. But I think I understand exactly what you mean. I think you mean to say that I can't sing the praises of nuclear proliferation in the region and at the same time blame Vanunu for doing just that: proliferate nuclear secrets. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, regardless of whether this is what you mean, here is how I see it.

Vanunu was giving away strategic data on Israeli nuclear arms. The leaking of this kind of specific knowledge could result in a conventional first strike capability for the Syrian or Egyptian side, and by implication (because of the Syrian-Iranian relationship) for the Iranian side. This in turn would heighten the chances of an Israeli nuclear first strike, particularly on Iran. That's why strategic knowledge of this kind must not be allowed to spread. It makes the nuclear dogs restless and upsets the strategic equation.

The spread of technical WMD knowledge on the other hand must be considered inevitable. It is accelerated in cases like Iran, which is hemmed in by four nuclear powers, five if you count Israel. Any Iranian government will want nuclear arms and will get them one way or another. The main function of these is strategic defense.

Syria, in turn, has already reached strategic parity with Israel through the deployment of large numbers of chemical warheads. Sooner or later these will be replaced by nuclear warheads. As long as the strategic balance in the region is not upset by first strike illusions, I think wars by (terrorist) proxy are the only way left for Arab nations and/or Iran to attack Israel. Israel's traditional strategy of massive, offensive response will gradually become obsolete. Its recent, largely failed war against Hezbollah in which only the Air Force performed well gives an inkling of the type of conflict we are likely to see for years to come.

[HoreTore]

How much do you know about nuclear weapons? For instance there are/were nuclear weapons designed to take out an enemy bunker. Most of the weapons themselves would not obliterate a city. It would actually take several to obliterate a city like Cairo and even Damascus. Now the radiation would take care of most of the civilians - but a significant portion of them would remain alive for awhile.

Yes I do know of those. But that's got nothing to do with it, since the nuclear weapons possessed by Israel at the times we are talking about were not bunker-busters, they were Hiroshima and up. According to one report, they were each of 19 kilotons in 1970. Hiroshima was 13-16.

Also, such weapons would not serve the purpose Adrian wants a nuclear weapon to serve(which is the threat of blowing up a city).


And I respect that. I considered calling you a 'loony leftie', but stopped short. Some of your notions are certainly loony left and I called you on them. Consider it tit-for-tat for your use of 'ridiculous'. :wink2:

Well I should've been accustomed to "grumpy gramps" Adrian by now...:whip:

Anyway Adrian - not wanting to risk a samson option - loony leftie? Hmmm...

[Adrian II]

Well I should've been accustomed to "grumpy gramps" Adrian by now...:whip:I know, I know, I'm terrible sometimes. I guess it comes with the advance of age, the numerous deceptions that make one weary and jaded. Believe me, it hurts me more than it hurts you.













Yeah, right...
https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8061/devil3sa8.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Redleg]

Yes I do know of those. But that's got nothing to do with it, since the nuclear weapons possessed by Israel at the times we are talking about were not bunker-busters, they were Hiroshima and up. According to one report, they were each of 19 kilotons in 1970. Hiroshima was 13-16.


THen you should know that you were committing Hyperbole about them being city destroyers. A 19 KT weapon has a destruction range of about 1 KM, a blast of 5KM, and radiation begins to significantly drop off after the blast radius. Unless of course one decides to use a ground burst and then the radiation can be significantly more spread out - downwind of the blast.

Ie a 19KT weapon is a very small one, artillery nuclear weapons by that time were above that yeild.


The Israeli's used them primarily as a threat against the arabs as Adrian alrealdy stated.

A city destroyer is 1MT and up.

[HoreTore]

THen you should know that you were committing Hyperbole about them being city destroyers. A 19 KT weapon has a destruction range of about 1 KM, a blast of 5KM, and radiation begins to significantly drop off after the blast radius. Unless of course one decides to use a ground burst and then the radiation can be significantly more spread out - downwind of the blast.

Bull. 1 km blast radius? More than enough to kill hundreds of thousands if not into the million if blown in the centre of a 7-million city like Cairo. And then add in those killed because of radiation...


The Israeli's used them primarily as a threat against the arabs as Adrian alrealdy stated.

Sigh. Read my earlier replies to Adrian.

When you have nuclear weapons available, even if the state only ever intends to use them to threaten(which by the way is not the point of Israels samson option), all it takes is one lunatic/idiot in the wrong place to create ragnarok.

[Redleg]

Bull. 1 km blast radius? More than enough to kill hundreds of thousands if not into the million if blown in the centre of a 7-million city like Cairo. And then add in those killed because of radiation...

Over-reaction scare that is the hallmark of nuclear weapons. How big is Cairo - willing to bet its bigger then 1 KM in radius? Again if your going to talk about the blast effects of a nuclear device have more then just a scare position.

Here read and educate yourself on blast effects of the weapons, not the scare tactics of the uninformed.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Would it have been a very ugly event - yep, but I dont buy into scare tactics and hyperbole when it comes to the weapons. They are bad enough without resorting to extreme extragation (SP).




Sigh. Read my earlier replies to Adrian.

Did and found them full of the normal hyperbole that you often use.



When you have nuclear weapons available, even if the state only ever intends to use them to threaten(which by the way is not the point of Israels samson option), all it takes is one lunatic/idiot in the wrong place to create ragnarok.

So you would agree that Iran should be bombed to the stone age if they think about building a nuclear device? We alreadly have nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Koreans - and they are lunatics.

[HoreTore]

Over-reaction scare that is the hallmark of nuclear weapons. How big is Cairo - willing to bet its bigger then 1 KM in radius? Again if your going to talk about the blast effects of a nuclear device have more then just a scare position.

Here read and educate yourself on blast effects of the weapons, not the scare tactics of the uninformed.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Would it have been a very ugly event - yep, but I dont buy into scare tactics and hyperbole when it comes to the weapons. They are bad enough without resorting to extreme extragation (SP).

Uhm. If you wipe out 1km radius of a city's centre, I'd call that destroyed. Saying it isn't is like saying that OBL didn't destroy the world trade centers because the foundations of the buildings remained :dizzy2:

I know that the city won't disappear completely by blowing a nuclear bomb. But fortunately, that's not what I mean when I say that it will be destroyed.

Another example would be destroying a car. A car can still be functional enough for you to drive it, but still count as destroyed.


Did and found them full of the normal hyperbole that you often use.

Here's a clue, redleg: it's how people usually talk to each other.


So you would agree that Iran should be bombed to the stone age if they think about building a nuclear device? We alreadly have nuclear weapons in the hands of the North Koreans - and they are lunatics.

"Bombed to the stone age"? That wouldn't be hyperbole, would it?

Anyway, I'm more of a "assassinations with revolution" when it comes to overthrowing despots. And in Iran I think that will be sufficient. North Korea on the other hand, is an invasion I'd gladly support.

[Redleg]

Uhm. If you wipe out 1km radius of a city's centre, I'd call that destroyed. Saying it isn't is like saying that OBL didn't destroy the world trade centers because the foundations of the buildings remained :dizzy2:

Then you would be incorrect- if the city is 7KM in radius - 1 km is not a city destroyed.



I know that the city won't disappear completely by blowing a nuclear bomb. But fortunately, that's not what I mean when I say that it will be destroyed.


Hyperbole then is the way you wish to discuss things.



Another example would be destroying a car. A car can still be functional enough for you to drive it, but still count as destroyed.

Incorrected - if a car is destroyed it is not driveable.




Here's a clue, redleg: it's how people usually talk to each other.


Again incorrect - only far left loonies and far right loonies use hyberbole in discussions all the time. Have fun with that one.



"Bombed to the stone age"? That wouldn't be hyperbole, would it?


Yep since that is the language you understand and use its fitting.



Anyway, I'm more of a "assassinations with revolution" when it comes to overthrowing despots. And in Iran I think that will be sufficient. North Korea on the other hand, is an invasion I'd gladly support.

assassinations do not remove the problem. Assassinations are a failure to committ to the right course of action. Its the action of a coward of the far left and the far right.

Tell you what go to South Korea and look across the DMZ - you don't have a clue about what you are saying. There is a reason why neither side has tried to resume the hot war in Korea.

[The Wizard]

Ah, The Independent. This is the type of people that read this fine product of journalism, apparently (from the comments section):

Without the Holocaust there would have been no Israel.

Red Cross figures released (at long last) prove there was NO Holocaust. Don't believe it? Then have the courage of your Zionist convictions and argue with the Red Cross.

Population data (some from Jewish sources) spanning the two World Wars render claims of six million victims mathematically impossible. (We'll overlook the conveniently forgotten claim of six million victims in WW1)

If police can find, as they frequently do, the remains of one or two murder victims, even six million could hardly disappear without trace. So where are they? Ground penetrationg radar can probe to thirty - forty feet!!

Only lies need to be protected by gagging defence lawyers from even presenting evidence on behalf of Holocaust deniers.

After all surely thousands of "Holocaust Survivors" can't all have such poor memories that not one can point search teams with their radars to just one mass grave?

PS I have a side bet with a friend that the Holocaust Preservation Society will have this post censored out within twenty four hours. So keep checking folks :-)Don't I just love Robert Fisk and his compadres.

[Tribesman]

Ah, The Independent. This is the type of people that read this fine product of journalism, apparently (from the comments section):

Ah the comments section , hey you can read the same crap in the ynet comment section , does that mean it is the type of people who read that fine product of journalism ?
Now I am sure you must have a point in that post ....but I fail to see what it is .

[PanzerJaeger]

how can Israel so demonise the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians

They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.

The palestinians only have their arab "brothers" to thank for that.


Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.

Of course now its taken on the left/right dimension, which means your stance on Israel has more to do with your stance on taxes than anything...

[Tribesman]

They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.
Errr...sorry there Panzer but why do you choose a date when their aspirations became legitimate to claim they are not legitimate , isit some sort of reverse psycology or something or are you just being errrrr.....whats the word?

Of course now its taken on the left/right dimension, which means your stance on Israel has more to do with your stance on taxes than anything...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
now that is funny , it has to be one of your best yet :2thumbsup: you were making a joke weren't you orwere you just being ...whats that word again ?

[LittleGrizzly]

Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.

The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.

[Beirut]

They are not legitimate, and haven't been since 1947.

No man is obliged to accept his being declared illegitimate at the hand's of another.


The Palestinians only have their arab "brothers" to thank for that.

Their Arab "brothers" didn't invade; the Zionists did and the UN sealed the deal. Read your history, it was clear prior to Day 1 that the Zionists had zero intention of living in a divided Palestine. They were going to take the whole thing for themselves by force as soon as they were able.

[Samurai Waki]

It could be said that Nuclear Proliferation has been the "Great Peacemaker" of the last 63 years. While, I dislike the prospect of a nuclear war, I have a difficult time believing a protracted non-nuclear scenario can possibly be any better. If I was the Average Yusuf walking through the streets of Baghdad at this very moment, I would probably sometimes almost prefer being vaporized rather live with the looming prospect of getting randomly shot at, being hit by an IED, a Suicide Bomber. A Stray Rocket from an American Helicopter, beatings and torture because you're a Sunni, not a Shi'ite. Ugh. I would be praying to Allah for a nuclear holocaust.

[Fragony]

Israel does what any democracy under constant thread of attack would do. It's amazing how so many free thinking Westerners have been manipulated by such a rudimentary propaganda machine.

The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.

What, killing all jews wherever you can find them is a good cause nowadays? These ' people' are conditioned to be killing machines from day one just because they don't have the upper hand doesn't make them any less disgusting. If it was me they would all be gone by now one way or another, the palestinians aren't victims, not of Israel at least.

[Beirut]

...the palestinians aren't victims, not of Israel at least.

It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.

[Fragony]

It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.

Sounds terrible for just playing with fireworks. Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.

[Adrian II]

Sounds terrible for just playing with fireworks. Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.Does any of you gentlemen have a suggestion how to break the stalemate over there? I mean short of the odd genocide?
:coffeenews:

[Fragony]

Arab countries opening their borders for the palestines. There are too much of them.

edit, that sounded bad, but what I mean is that it's unsustainable anyway. Too many people. Israel isn't the only border trapping them. Palestine can't be because it just can't survive as it is.

[The Wizard]

This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida to the UK (not sure about that, however) and supports Ilan Pappe (another one who has made yerida). It's only too bad that most people in this thread follow the same line.


The palestinian population does what any population under occupation and constant attack would do, terrorist or freedom fighter thier cause is just.You're right, you know...

... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.

Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.


It's Israel that stole their land, kills them, tortures them, keeps them locked up and held down. Of course the Palestinians are victimes of Israel.It's Arab states that put them in that situation, Palestinian armed movements that keep them there, Arabs and Palestinians alike killing them, torturing them, keeping them locked up and held down. Yet apparently they are only the victims of the evil Zionist war machine.

[Adrian II]

This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida to the UK (not sure about that, however) and supports Ilan Pappe (another one who has made yerida). It's only too bad that most people in this thread follow the same line.The Independent is quite decent, as rags go. No one in their right mind would identify that paper with a single readers' letter and people who are interested in an article's substance couldn't care less if the author is an Inuit who made Yerida to Ouagadougou.

Could you tell us what your own view of Israel's future is? That would be much more informative.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20080423_11237_11237

I can't remember if I posted this, and I can't look back right now.

[The Wizard]

The Independent is quite decent, as rags go. No one in their right mind would identify that paper with a single readers' letter and people who are interested in an article's substance couldn't care less if the author is an Inuit who made Yerida to Ouagadougou.You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.


Could you tell us what your own view of Israel's future is? That would be much more informative.My view is that the much-vaunted "road map to peace" and the so-called "peace process" will fail -- even if an agreement is reached. The simple fact of the matter is that with the entire political landscape of Palestine dominated by heavily-armed, murderous and eternally in-fighting militant groups, there will be no peace. The moment you make peace with one group, the next one starts firing missiles and trying to blow people up. Whatever Israel is doing chasing down terrorists with fighter aircraft, at least when Jerusalem says "stop," stop it will.

What the Palestinians need is not a road map to peace, nor do they need a breather for the next round of violence after Hamas has stocked up on some much-needed ammo and heavier toys; what they need is a Martin Luther King Junior, a Gandhi. Only once Israeli guns point only at massive Palestinian protest marches will there be no course left but to establish a peaceful, democratic and free Palestinian state.

[Adrian II]

My view is that the much-vaunted "road map to peace" and the so-called "peace process" will fail -- even if an agreement is reached. The simple fact of the matter is that with the entire political landscape of Palestine dominated by heavily-armed, murderous and eternally in-fighting militant groups, there will be no peace. The moment you make peace with one group, the next one starts firing missiles and trying to blow people up. Whatever Israel is doing chasing down terrorists with fighter aircraft, at least when Jerusalem says "stop," stop it will.

What the Palestinians need is not a road map to peace, nor do they need a breather for the next round of violence after Hamas has stocked up on some much-needed ammo and heavier toys; what they need is a Martin Luther King Junior, a Gandhi. Only once Israeli guns point only at massive Palestinian protest marches will there be no course left but to establish a peaceful, democratic and free Palestinian state.Thanks for that, Baba-Ga'on. And where do you think Israel is heading, amidst all this? What is its future?

Oh, and what do you think of the article linked by our Mad Martian?

[Samurai Waki]

Israel belongs to whomever can take and then hold it.

[Beirut]

Israel ain't no angel but it isn't Israel that prefers Palestine to continue to be what it is right now.

Palestine is exactly what everyone wants it to be. I'm not saying the Palestinians aren't responsible for their own behaviour, every man and country is, but you have to admire how the world (Arab countries, Israel, US) has manipulated the situation to keep the Palestinians in a state that is convenient to their own goals and ambitions and not to the benefit of the Palestinians themselves.

The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.


It's Arab states that put them in that situation, Palestinian armed movements that keep them there, Arabs and Palestinians alike killing them, torturing them, keeping them locked up and held down. Yet apparently they are only the victims of the evil Zionist war machine.

It was the long term goals of the Zionists, the creation of Israel itself, and the conduct of successive Israeli governments that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. None of this would have happened if people from all over the world didn't get on planes and boats and cross oceans and continents to set up shop in someone else's front yard.

The Palestinians are the victims of everyone. Including themselves.

[Tribesman]

You would ignore where the author is coming from? Most interesting. 'Cause, you know, in an editorial, knowing that is kinda, you know, important. If you didn't know yet, that is.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh dear Baba if you want to know where the author is coming from then why not look at the Israeli media and resident Israeli commentators over this 60th anniversary period , the papers have been full of similar pieces making the same observations and asking the same questions and they come from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (apart from the crazy settlers movements) .
Israel is at a sticking point and it cannot continue on the path it has taken , it simply cannot afford to . The outlay is just too big for too little return .

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.


I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...

:book2:

[Fragony]

Palestine is exactly what everyone wants it to be.

Western world would love this to end, what good is it to us? We side with Israel, so? Democracy's back democracy's. The muslim world however needs it to remain like this it has become a reality of it's own, palestine is a powerful propaganda-tool. Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that. If they wanted this to end it would end, all Israel does is deal with it's excesses and I don't blame them.

[PanzerJaeger]

Errr...sorry there Panzer but why do you choose a date when their aspirations became legitimate to claim they are not legitimate , isit some sort of reverse psycology or something or are you just being errrrr.....whats the word?


Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.


No man is obliged to accept his being declared illegitimate at the hand's of another.

Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation. Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people. However, in a moment of clarity, the UN in 1947 decided to bestow on the palestinians a nation of their own. Upon hearing this, they immediately began a vicious war and promptly got their tails kicked.

The brutal truth, Beirut, is that simply living on a piece of land does not give one the right to organize and form a new nation. Here, the South tried it. Where you are, the French have been trying it. On the rare occasion a nation is able to break away by force, its usually through a successful war. Unfortunately, the arabs have proven themselves to be atrocious soldiers.

In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are (:egypt: ), they started a war instead. They screwed themselves to a whole new level.

[Tribesman]

Nope. The UN Mandate was declined by the arabs and then they began a war, which they lost, horribly. There are consequences to losing wars.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
That has to be the funniest ever:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Panzer he war isn't over without a peace treaty between the people involved , this elusive deal that is still going through the talks process is that peace treaty , that is the legitimacy , a legitimacy you ludicrously say they don't have .
If possibly you get the chance to notice that those treaties that do end the war between Israel and other states by doing such things as confriming the limit of their own territory both contain clauses that stipulate that the limit of their own terroitory do not mean that the other territory is Israeli , they both say that must be settled by the other parties with a future treaty to end the war .
Since Isreal signed this they agree to the legitimacy don't they , so how on earth can you claim there is no legitimacy :dizzy2:


Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation.
OMG you really havn't got a clue about the terms of the mandate

Since 1917, it was a British mandate with the goal of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people.
And not only do you clearly demonstrate a completelack of knowledge on the mandate you throw in a lack of knowledge about the declaration too .:dizzy2:
Panzer might I suggest you stick to discussing the London congestion charge since your lack of knowledge on that subject is far far less than on this subject .


In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are ( ), they started a war instead.
Now that would be funny , if it wasn't that you actually believe that crap .


I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...

Now now Banguo stop that at once or it might have to be applied to Fragonys nonsense .....
Palestine is the only place where muslim are oppressed instead of being the oppressors they can't afford to lose that. :idea2:

[Fragony]

:idea2:

Ya uh-huh

[Beirut]

I distinctly recall that somewhere in the history books there was another people similarly afflicted. Honestly, it's on the tip of my tongue...

:book2:

Damn straight there was. It was unacceptable then and it's unacceptable now.


In essence, the palestinians have no right to the land. In 1947, they were briefly offered a right to some of it, and being the people that they are ( ), they started a war instead. They screwed themselves to a whole new level.

They were born there, they lived there, the land was theirs. As Moshe Dayan said, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist."

And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?

The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.

[Tribesman]

And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?

Well thats obvious isn't it Beirut , they is muslims innit..well apart from the christians and druze but they is sorta muslim anyway together with those communist godless heathens and various other flavours of non-believers but they is still them people you know even if they follow the noodly appendage they is still them because ...well because its them people right :dizzy2:
But look on the bright side , if it was in his grandaddys times then talking about them people would have been about the Jews so it is progress as todays "them people" are now a bigger group so it is less dicriminatory than it used to be , so thats better isn't it :2thumbsup: Then again"them people" could have also included slavs back in the day and they make quite a big group so perhaps it isn't really progress at all .:thumbsdown:

[Fragony]

What difference does it make who started what who keeps it going?

[LittleGrizzly]

Palestinian militants are not freedom fighters. You slander the name of many, many resistance movements throughout history by calling them that. Had they been worthy of the name, there probably would already have been a Palestinian state by now.

The mot accurate way to describe them probably would be freedom fighting terrorists, seen as they fight for freedom so they are freedom fighters, they use terrorist methods so they are terrorist freedom fighters.

... if the armed Palestinian factions hadn't been systematically targeting civilians for the better part of a century, instead of fighting the fair fight and limiting themselves to the Israeli military.

choice of target does not make someone a freedom fighter or not, a freedom fighter by my definition is someone who fights the people who occupy thier land, whether a foriegn power or a homegrown govermet power.

Thats the irony of it all. The palestinians had no legal claim on that land. It was never theirs, as they were never a nation

Whether Palestine the nation existed or not there where people there before the land got given away, whether thier palestinians or unknown occupants of land A, they still lived there and have every right to be annoyed when people come along and kick them off thier land.

[The Wizard]

Thanks for that, Baba-Ga'on. And where do you think Israel is heading, amidst all this? What is its future?Israel? What do you think? It will remain. Both the demographic worries of many Zionists today, namely the growth of the Israeli Arab population and the growth of the Haredi population will not lead to any major shifts in anything, just like the growth of the Catholic population of the Netherlands only lead to an increase of a couple percent points on the total Dutch population, even though it was predicted that Catholic babies would swamp the land. Neither removing the settlements nor bringing the settlers back to Israel will endanger its independence.

Besides that I don't really know how to answer your question. You'll have to be a little more specific if the above isn't what you meant.


It was the long term goals of the Zionists, the creation of Israel itself, and the conduct of successive Israeli governments that are primarily responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. None of this would have happened if people from all over the world didn't get on planes and boats and cross oceans and continents to set up shop in someone else's front yard.That's interesting. I didn't know just living where you want to live automatically leads to conflict! I mean, of course, it was the Yishuv that began pogroming the locals in the 1920s, and the Zionists who came in guns blazing taking land like some kind of 20th century conquistadores. Arabs and Jews had also never lived in peace in the land before.

Seriously: [removed irrelevant, unsupported observation] - K


The Palestinians have no friends, no one they can truly trust, they are treated as disposable people. That's one reason I feel such empathy for them. No person or people should be discarded from the human race like that.Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.


Oh dear Baba if you want to know where the author is coming from then why not look at the Israeli media and resident Israeli commentators over this 60th anniversary period , the papers have been full of similar pieces making the same observations and asking the same questions and they come from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (apart from the crazy settlers movements) .Oh? I didn't know that the majority of Israel hates its own country. Can you then explain why the majority of Israel hasn't made yerida yet? 'Cause, you know, not everybody is like Ilan Pappé or this fine gentleman. Most are like Benny Morris or Martin van Creveld, somewhat less like Ariel Sharon, desiring peace but not willing to have it if it's not lasting. There's a reason Shalom Achshav and other movements like it have been steadily losing support since the failure of the Camp David-Taba accords, and the reason isn't Adrian II's "religious fundamentalism". Their support of a peace process that won't bring peace, only ceasefire and a breather, has cost them dearly.


They were born there, they lived there, the land was theirs. As Moshe Dayan said, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist."Do some research. The Arab population in what European imperialists named after a Roman province that had been dead for fifteen hundred years was extremely mobile, and it is not sure at all if many of the people living there in 1948 had been living there for generations, or even for ten years.


The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.Ahahaha, hahaha, haha, oh wow.

You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division). It was he and the rest of the al-Husayni clan who instigated and lead pogroms and murders of Yishuv members from the 1920s onwards, starting a long conflict that endures to the present day. It was he and other members of his clan who started the Mandatory Civil War after the UN, which was kinda like Iraq is now, only then in the 1940s.

The Yishuv started no conflict. The very fact that you assume that they did is beyond me, considering most of these people were fleeing persecution themselves and only wanted to live in peace on land to call their own.

But you're right. The Palestinians did not start "the war". Arabs in what they considered to be part of Syria did. The Palestinian identity was not widespread until the 1970s or even later.


The mot accurate way to describe them probably would be freedom fighting terrorists, seen as they fight for freedom so they are freedom fighters, they use terrorist methods so they are terrorist freedom fighters.No, not really. You see, if they used terrorist methods (bombs, sabotage, raids, the works) only against military targets, like, say, the French Resistance during WW2 did, you'd be right. But Palestinian militants only attack civilians (and each other). A freedom fighter and a murderer of innocents is incomparable.

[LittleGrizzly]

Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.

I really doubt a few left wingers and a few academics makes up for almost every other country being against you and your closest friends just use you as a stick to beat thier enemys with, hardly seems a fair trade off.

No, not really. You see, if they used terrorist methods (bombs, sabotage, raids, the works) only against military targets, like, say, the French Resistance during WW2 did, you'd be right.

you seem to be confusing method and goal, method is something you use to achieve the goal, whether the method is evil, stupid or actually takes you away from your goal, the goal remains the same.

so if thier goal is to stop the occupation, get israel off thier lands, they're fighting for freedom.

[Tribesman]

You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division). :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah the same old crap again , the infamous Handschar division which famously was the only SS division to mutiny..but maybe that was the catholics who mutinied .
Honestly so much bollox is written on pro-zionist websites about that division that I really do have to laugh when someone tries to mention it as an example .


It will remain. Both the demographic worries of many Zionists today, namely the growth of the Israeli Arab population and the growth of the Haredi population will not lead to any major shifts in anything
Oh dear you really havn't been following events in Jerulasalem have you ~:doh:


Oh? I didn't know that the majority of Israel hates its own country.
I see you have a problem reading don't you , that explains how you can write such bollox .
Try reading what you think you were responding to eh , then try again .




What difference does it make who started what who keeps it going?

Since all sides started it and all sides keep it going what was your point again ?

[Fragony]

Since all sides started it and all sides keep it going what was your point again ?

What's unclear?

[Vladimir]

That view can be summed up by the word bollox .

You're Gordon Ramsay (http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/154/index.jsp) aren't you?

Worth the risk:

Did you know you can say ":daisy:" on BBC America?

Edit: Hey. The BBC is cultured, it has these ladies (http://www.channel4.com/4homes/ontv/how_clean_is_your_house/index.html). Culture aplenty there just of a smaller and infectious nature.

[Don Corleone]

I'm going to take a different tact than I usually do in these discussions. I think everyone knows that I support a two-state solution, Israel's right to defend itself against aggressors, and Palestine's right to its own sovereign territory. No need to rehash all that.

I'd like to focus more on the OP, as well as Adrian's interesting take. Banquo's article, and therefore, by extension, Banquo himself, seemed to be suggesting that the tone of rhetoric and the approach Israel has taken over the past 6 decades has changed. Adrian said this was due to a shift from a heavily secularized national focus to the introduction of religous fundamentalism (Jewish fundamentalism in this case) into Israeli politics.

I find Adrian's view very interesting, and certainly worthy of further study and contemplation. I have heard anecdotal evidence that supports his assertion, that Israel is becoming increasingly religiously conservative.

But I would like to challenge the assertion that the tone has changed. I don't see Israel as being any more aggressive or harsh in its reactions than it has been in the past. I think Israel's reaction to the 6-day war in 1967 was the pinnacle of Israeli aggresive responses. Think about it... they didn't just annex the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. They took the Sinai, the Golan Heights and other extra-territorial portions of neighboring countries that were never even mentioned in the UN mandate. If anything, over the 40 years since, I see Israel as having (granted slowly) inched back from a rather confrontational posture to one where they've made it clear they're willing to trade land for peace (and recognition of their right to exist).

As for Israel's future, Adrian's other question that shows promise of moving this particular thread outside all the other Israel/Palestine ones, I think it's rather bleak. I do not believe there will be a nation of Israel in 30 years time. I don't think it will end tomorrow or next year, but it's only a matter of time. I say that because each successive Israeli generation has shown more and more propensity to try to work with foreign nations. But time has only hardened the resolve of the Syrians, the Iranians and other strong neighbors. Egypt has become more and more riddled with extremism, and I believe that when Mubarak passes, they will be a much different nation than they are today. Lebanon will continue to suffer under the hands of Hizbollah, whom I believe will eventually control all of Lebanon, by a seizure of power.

In other words, Israel has gradually become more willing to deal, while other forces in the region have become less so. We've seen the Palestinians move from discussions of how to ressurect the two-state solution (under the PLO) to an avowed mission to end the existence of Israel (under Hamas). And while yes, Israel did develop nuclear armaments 40 years ago, they were clearly defensive in nature. Iran is developoing a nuclear program that they refuse to attribute to purely defensive intentions, and have a national leader who has publicly called for the destruction of Israel. It is the folly of the West that we never believe these madmen until there is no choice but to do so.

So sadly, I think the talk of Israel's self-defense is a moot point. I think the years to come, the governments of Western Europe will continue their policy of active disengagement with Israel, who will find itself with one lone friend in the world, the USA. And I think American policy now needs to shift from defending the right of Israel exist there, to the defense of the right of Jews to exist, here. This is not hyperbole. I believe the commentary coming from Iran, from Syria, from Lebanon, and from Hamas, that once they have the land, the people will be the next to be destroyed. If we don't want another holocaust, we need to find a place to put those 11 million people within our own borders and pray that we can keep the Islamic fundamentalists out (though a quick glance at Dearborn, MI, shows that we're losing on that front as well).

[The Wizard]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah the same old crap again , the infamous Handschar division which famously was the only SS division to mutiny..but maybe that was the catholics who mutinied .
Honestly so much bollox is written on pro-zionist websites about that division that I really do have to laugh when someone tries to mention it as an example .None of this even attempts to address the main points in that paragraph. It just trips over an anecdote mentioned in passing and falls flat on its face. Sorry Tribesman :(


Oh dear you really havn't been following events in Jerulasalem have youAs said, that has more to do with migration than with birth rates. One simple look at the history of these things reveals that the chance that it will lead to a major demographic shift without migration across the country is small at best.


I see you have a problem reading don't you , that explains how you can write such bollox .
Try reading what you think you were responding to eh , then try again .
Looks like you're the one suffering from this, buddy. Perhaps you should try to answer my point there before replying again. Perhaps this rephrasing'll make it a little bit easier and make you a little bit less confused: what exactly makes the majority of Israel of the same opinion as Ilan Pappé and the author of this editorial and their chums? You see, you might not know and all, but the tone, style, and argumentation of this fine piece of journalistic work isn't exactly the usual in the country (thank God). Just thought you should know.

[Beirut]

That's interesting. I didn't know just living where you want to live automatically leads to conflict! I mean, of course, it was the Yishuv that began pogroming the locals in the 1920s, and the Zionists who came in guns blazing taking land like some kind of 20th century conquistadores. Arabs and Jews had also never lived in peace in the land before.

"Living where you want to"? A lovely euphamism for "I'm stealing your land."

You certainly don't have to take my word for it, read the words of the Zionist and Isreali leaders. It was clear from the start that the Zionists had every intention of forming an army and taking all of Palestine for themselves. That's not me saying that, that's Ben-Gurion and his friends.


Oh? I see plenty of friends in this thread, in The Independent, in academic life, across the Internets and throughout the press.

Thankfully, yes. But as far as countries go, nobody will stand by them. Even my ridiculous Canadian government won't talk to the Palestinians. Canadians are supposed to be honest and trusted peace brokers who will speak to all sides to help end conflicts, but our feds have their heads so far up the US/Israeli collective backside we've become puppets and are too afraid to speak for ourselves. Truly terrible.


Do some research. The Arab population in what European imperialists named after a Roman province that had been dead for fifteen hundred years was extremely mobile, and it is not sure at all if many of the people living there in 1948 had been living there for generations, or even for ten years.

Golda Meir felt the same way. Amazing woman, but I feel she was wrong on this issue as well.


Ahahaha, hahaha, haha, oh wow.

I made you smile. It's a better day for both of us then. :sunny:


You, sir, [...] Have you perchance heard of a Mohammed Amin al-Husayni, an Ayan (Ottoman provincial noble) of the al-Husayni clan? You probably haven't, seeing your previous posts. He was a close confidante of Hitler and recruited Muslims into the Waffen-SS (the infamous Handschar division). It was he and the rest of the al-Husayni clan who instigated and lead pogroms and murders of Yishuv members from the 1920s onwards, starting a long conflict that endures to the present day. It was he and other members of his clan who started the Mandatory Civil War after the UN, which was kinda like Iraq is now, only then in the 1940s.

I might have heard of him, not really sure. I'll read up.

I have, however, heard of Yitzak Shamir and Menachim Begin. While my father, a Canadian soldier, was fighting the Nazis in WWII, those two gentlemen were killing Allied soldiers. So who was on whose side?


The Yishuv started no conflict. The very fact that you assume that they did is beyond me, considering most of these people were fleeing persecution themselves and only wanted to live in peace on land to call their own.

Lots of people flee persecution, that does not entitle them to take someone else land and call it their own.


But you're right. The Palestinians did not start "the war". Arabs in what they considered to be part of Syria did. The Palestinian identity was not widespread until the 1970s or even later.


Semantics do not justify inhumanity, brutality, and theft. People lost their land and their homes and their lives when others came to steal what was theirs. Palestine existed, in one form or another, perhaps in different shapes and under different regimes, but people lived there and worked there and had children there and called it home. Israel, on the other hand, was created out of the thin bureaucratic air and peopled by the citizens of dozens of foreign countries, some of them thousands of miles away.

[Tribesman]

Looks like you're the one suffering from this, buddy. Perhaps you should try to answer my point there before replying again. Perhaps this rephrasing'll make it a little bit easier and make you a little bit less confused: what exactly makes the majority of Israel of the same opinion as Ilan Pappé and the author of this editorial and their chums? You see, you might not know and all, but the tone, style, and argumentation of this fine piece of journalistic work isn't exactly the usual in the country (thank God). Just thought you should know.

Thats funny since over 60% of Israelis favour such views , and you know what really funny every such editorial in the Israeli media gets lots of favourable comments from Israeli Jews and lots and lots of hostile comments from non-Israelis describing all those in favour as self hating jews . sad isn't it when you read page after page of slagging from some prick in Brooklyn or Ottowa claiming that the people in Israel havn't got a clue and are traitors to zionism .


None of this even attempts to address the main points in that paragraph. It just trips over an anecdote mentioned in passing and falls flat on its face. Sorry Tribesman :(

The main points in the paragraph :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: they were bollox too since both sides were at it .


As said, that has more to do with migration than with birth rates. One simple look at the history of these things reveals that the chance that it will lead to a major demographic shift without migration across the country is small at best.
I can see you havn't a clue what that was about . Would a clue be in part of your post and the city mentioned in my post . Apparently its a big and growing worry and not just for the zionists .

[Sarmatian]

Do some research. The Arab population in what European imperialists named after a Roman province that had been dead for fifteen hundred years was extremely mobile, and it is not sure at all if many of the people living there in 1948 had been living there for generations, or even for ten years.


Would you care elaborating on this point? Just what exactly "extremely mobile" means? Cause it's sound like a commercial slogan. Because they were mobile we have to assume that most of them didn't live there before <insert amount of time> and that gives someone the right to claim it? Well, I move every night from my living room to my bedroom, I somehow don't expect that someone can claim my livingroom as his because his grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand... father had a hut made of mud in that place more than a thousand years ago.


And just how many Isrealis have been living there for generations in todays Israel? Or better yet, after ww2, at the time Israel was formed?

[Beirut]

It was suggested by someone perhaps wiser than myself, a most ginormous grouping indeed, that I should include quotes with my assertions.

Therefore, relating to my assertions that the Zionists did plan to take all of Palestine for themselves and that there was an indigenous population:


"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder important then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land."

1919, Lord Balfour, the father of the Balfour Declaration, justified the usurpation of Palestinians right of self-determination.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- David Ben Gurion. Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.


"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.


"There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99

[PanzerJaeger]

:Panzer might I suggest you stick to discussing the London congestion charge since your lack of knowledge on that subject is far far less than on this subject .

Its all there in the history books. The arabs continue to start wars, lose land, and then somehow expect for it to be given right back. I wonder if they would do the same if they didn't suck so much at military operations. Probably would, as they're so invested in making themselves seem oppressed.



And being the people they are ( )... And what, pray tell, kind of people would that be, my dear sir?

I think I've made my feelings on arab muslims - their values, society and culture - abundantly clear. I can reiterate if you'd like.


The Palestinians did not start the war, the Zionists started the war. The Zionists packed up their bags and families, sold their houses, gave up their birth nationalities, and crossed oceans and continents and time zones to start the war. The Palestinians didn't have to move ten feet because they were already there. The only possible way you could say the Palestinians started the war would be to blame them for getting in the way of the people stealing their land.

Ah, but you cannot steal something from someone if it did not belong to him in the first place.

A rather crude and imperfect example would be the status of Mexicans living in the West after the Mexican-American war. It did not matter whether they had been living there for several generations, their "ownership" of the land they lived on was at the sole discretion of the American government.

Although the causes were different, the situation was the same. The palestinians were at the will of the UN and the British. They chose to make a homeland for the Jews out of a tiny parcel of land taken from the Ottoman Empire. It was their prerogative to make such a mistake.

[Tribesman]

Its all there in the history books. The arabs continue to start wars, lose land, and then somehow expect for it to be given right back.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
They expect it tobe given right back:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
read the history books Panzer , Israel is signatory to a document that says it cannot take land in war and not give it back :dizzy2:



Ah, but you cannot steal something from someone if it did not belong to him in the first place.
But it did belong to people , it was the Jewish settlers who owned less land . and the government held land was to be distributed to the residents on an equitable basis , so your ownership claim is complete bollox .

I think I've made my feelings on arab muslims
Ah so the arab christians are OK then , and the atheists .

[Fragony]

Ah so the arab christians are OK then , and the atheists .

Nope they are not OK, they are being oppressed by your favorite people.

[Adrian II]

I thought I'd trot out some facts, you never know what it's good for.


Fact:The land of Palestine was known as such (Παλαιστίνη) in the days of Herodotus.

See his Histories 7:89 where he describes it as being inhabited by Syrians and Phoenicians: '[..] and this part of Syria and all as far as Egypt is called Palestine.' Of course the population of the area has since been in flux, as has the population in every other part of the world. Jews were part of that flux wherever they moved.

It is rather funny to see Arabs being posthumously denied a right to Palestinian land around 1900 because they supposedly didn't have fixed abodes and were 'moving around' as it is said, as this applies a fortiori to any Jews who settled there.


Fact: Under the British Mandate, all who lived in the region called Palestine were legally Palestinians, including all Jews.
The term 'Palestinian Jews' was dropped only after 1948 when these Jews became citizens of Israel. Likewise the Arabs who lived there were called 'Palestinian Arabs'. The 'creation' of a separate Palestinian identity was as much the work of the Arab leaders as the Palestinians themselves. A separate Palestinian nation with a claim to Israel's land was a useful pawn to these leaders. The question of whether the Palestinians constituted a nation before the period under consideration is neither here nor there. All nations were once constituted for the first time. So were the Palestinians, ultimately during the Mandate. What counts is that they are a nation now.


Fact: When the British took the first population census under the Mandate in 1922, the breakdown was as follows: 752,048 individuals, of which 589,177 Muslims, 83,790 Jews, 71,464 Christians and 7,617 persons belonging to other groups. When the British left in 1948, the numbers were: approximately 1.35 million Arabs and approximately 650,000 Jews.
If the Arabs were chased off their land during the Mandate, how is it that there were twice as many of them after the Mandate ended? Or could it be that Zionist colonization had been far less aggressive than it is made out to be?

The problem of 'whose land was it in the first place?' is complicated. The Arab fellahin (peasants) who lived and tilled the land in what is now Israel were most often not the legal owners of that land. They despised their own leaders and land-owners who sold them for a nickel and a dime if they had the chance. Israeli unwillingness to strike a deal with the locals and their (often absenteist) masters grew as a result of the rampant antisemitism among Palestinians in the 1920's and 1930's. After the Mufti-led revolt of 1936 any chance of a peaceful solution was gone.

Ben-Gurion's writings reflect the ambivalence of a man who lived through all this, and who was forced to deal decisively with these matters, yet refused to adopt the kind of Jewish fascism promulgated by Jabotinsky e.a. Unless someone disabuses me with evidence in hand, I believe Ben-Gurion's writings and speeches show that he was both more honest and more lucid than any Arab figurehead in Palestine at the time.

[Beirut]

I think I've made my feelings on arab muslims - their values, society and culture - abundantly clear. I can reiterate if you'd like.

Only if it would offer you a cathartic respite.


Ah, but you cannot steal something from someone if it did not belong to him in the first place.

Do you really think semantics justify theft? Besides, what constitutes ownership? Does the man who was born and lives in a place and raises his family there have no rights to the land only because a bureaucrat thousands of miles away says the paperwork now says the land now belongs to another guy who has never even been to that place in his life?

The files might be in order and the forms signed in triplicate, but where is the justice? Theft is theft no matter what you call it and how nicely you dress it up.

Even the founder of Israel agreed the Zionists were taking other people's land.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ah so the arab christians are OK then , and the atheists .

Your distorted realities aside, its about the culture, not race.

Arabs or muslims who have embraced some of the basic tenants of what we consider enlightened thought here in the West, I have few problems with. These would include such basic freedoms as those of thought and expression. Oh, and the strange habit of not subjugating women.

On the other hand, I believe I have made reference to those arabs who embrace the strains of Islam common in that part of the world - which includes the vast majority of palestinians - as being more akin to our canine friends than ourselves.

Clear enough?




Do you really think semantics justify theft? Besides, what constitutes ownership? Does the man who was born and lives in a place and raises his family there have no rights to the land only because a bureaucrat thousands of miles away says the paperwork now says the land now belongs to another guy who has never even been to that place in his life?

The files might be in order and the forms signed in triplicate, but where is the justice? Theft is theft no matter what you call it and how nicely you dress it up.

Even the founder of Israel agreed the Zionists were taking other people's land.

We're operating on different levels. Im making a legal argument and you are offering an emotional one.

To be very honest, I do not think Israel was a good idea.

If I were Truman, I would have offered some of the vast swathes of government owned American land for the Jews to come and settle in. Make it its's own stat. It certainly would have helped the economy. :yes:

Of course that wouldn't have swung with the American people or the Zionists.

Unfortunately, the nation of Israel was created, and it was well within the UN's authority to let that happen.

The time to fight against its creation - through petitions to the UN or through military force - was in 1947. Each successive decade that passes makes the failure of palestinians to accept peace, or even Israel itself, even more ridiculous. Each infatada, each school bus blown up, each nightclub slaughter, and each rocket fired into urban areas makes the heavy-handed retaliations of the Israelis a little bit more justified.

You know, my father was very much indoctrinated into the Nazi war machine through the Hitler Youth. In '45, he simply could not - would not - believe Germany had lost. It was a terrible thing for such a small boy to have believed with all his heart that Germany was right and would win, and then to see his neighborhood patrolled by foreign soldiers.

However, 63 years later, it has sunken in. In fact, reality came to him far sooner than that, and he was able to move on and make something of himself. Palestinians could learn from such an example.

In other words, do they want to be the Native Americans who wallow in poverty and drunkenness, complaining about how their land was stolen - or do they want to be the Native Americans bringing in millions who just bought Hard Rock.

Sometimes you just have to move on. Everyone has OK'd a palestinian state except the palestinians.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This article, put shortly, is filth. It's full of misinformation, propaganda, and lies. But that's not very surprising coming from what appears to be an Israeli who has made yerida I share a house with an Israeli who made yerida. She is a seventh generation Israeli. Her family lived in Hebron (I think it was) long before Herzl, long before Balfour, long before 1948.

And no, Palestine was not an empty land. It was an inhabited land, often a dangerous land. By denying this, one denies the history and hardship of the first Jewish settlers. :yes:

But her family could live with the Arabs. Sometimes there was mutual aggression, sometimes peace and co-operation. What they can not live with, what made her leave, was the change in Israeli society. After the war, her parents grew up in a Tel Aviv that was open, enlightened, progressive. Now? It is full of Israelis who think they are brave for spending their conscription years as part of one of the strongest militaries in the world, pestering Palestian civilians at checkpoints. Hardliners, orthodoxes, pinguins. This Israel, and not two centuries of living amongst Arabs, is what made her leave.

[Fragony]

Allah bless the EU.


THE STRASBOURG RESOLUTIONS

The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation comprises more than 200 members of Western European Parliaments of widely different political tendencies. At its General Assembly in Strasbourg on June 7th at 8th the Parliamentary Association unanimously passed the following resolutions:

(1) Final Resolution of the Political Committee

The General assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation calls upon European Governments to take initiatives forthwith that will help to secure the withdrawal of Israel from all territories occupied in 1967.
Such a withdrawal is implied by Resolution 242 and required by Resolution 338 of the United Nations Security Council and also by the United Nations Charter and the principles of International Law which categorically forbid the acquisition or territory by force.
The Association emphasizes that there can be no just and lasting peace settlement without recognition of the national rights of the Palestinian people. There has already been almost unanimous acceptance by the International Community of this principle, which Israel must also come to accept.
The whole Arab world has agreed that the P. L.O. is the sole representative of the Palestinian nation and this decision has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the countries represented at the United Nations.
The Parliamentary Association urges European governments to recognise this fundamental point in the initiatives they should now take.
First, they should call on Israel to halt immediately the expropriation and confiscation of Arab property in Israel and the occupied territories.
In particular, Israel must end the process of the "Judaization" of Jerusalem which it has illegally annexed and the establishment of new Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
Secondly, the European governments should try to get all interested parties including Israel and the P.L.O. to the conference table, if possible within the context of the Geneva Conference. Europe itself, either through its member states or through the E.E.C. could play a valuable part in such a conference if called upon to do so. It would be reasonable to expect all concerned not to resort to military action of any kind for the duration of the negotiations.
Third, they should urge both the Israelis and the P.L.O. to agree to leave in abeyance discussion of ultimate solutions and concentrate on the immediate and practical task of trying to find a modus Vivendi which will require the acceptance by Israel of the rights of the Palestinian nation and of the existence of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza if the Palestinians decide to establish one, and reciprocally the acceptance of the existence of Israel within her 1967 frontiers.
Finally, the European governments should urge on all concerned the crucial importance of effective peace-keeping machinery and should agree to take an active part themselves in such arrangements.
The Parliamentary Association recognises the problem that is posed by the fact that some of the media and publishing houses of Europe are dilatory in disseminating facts about the Arab world and intends to use its influence to overcome this problem.
The Parliamentary Association recognises the help done to the understanding of the Arab cause and growing sympathy for it in Western Europe by the liberalisation measures taken in various Arab countries and by the readier access to Arab countries by the news media, businessmen and other visitors from Europe .
The Association calls on European governments to improve legal regulations concerning the freedom of travel and the protection of the basic rights of immigrant workers in Europe which should be equivalent to those of citizens of the countries concerned.
The Association considers that the political settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict is an absolute necessity for the establishment of a genuine Euro-Arab co-operation. Nevertheless, the Association considers that the political aspect of co-operationing not limited to this point alone, and has in mind for example the free circulation of ideas and people in the world as a factor for the maintenance of peace, for the support of freedom and in particular for a harmonious development of co-operation between Western Europe and the Arab nations.
The Association believes that the prospects of long-term Euro-Arab co-operation in all fields have never been so favourable but that they depend on a peace settlement based on justice in the Middle-East.

(2) Final Resolution of the Cultural Committee.

The General Assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Co-operation, meeting in Strasbourg on June 7th 1975,
Having considered the cultural resolutions adopted by the the preparatory conference for Euro-Arab
parliamentary co-operation held in Damascus from November 12th to 17th, 1974, which reaffirms in the
present resolution,
convinced that significant results are possible in the cultural field of the Euro-Arab dialogue,
recognising the historic contribution of Arab culture to European development,
emphasising the contribution which Arab culture can still give to European countries especially
in the field of human values,
regretting that cultural relations between European and Arab countries are still infrequent
and limited in scope,
regretting the relative neglect of the teaching of Arab culture and Arabic in Europe and looking forward to
its development,
hoping that European governments will help Arab countries to create the resources needed for the
participation of immigrant workers and their families in Arab culture and religious life,
asking the European press to show a sense of responsibility so that they may inform public opinion
objectively and more fully about the problems of the Arab world,
recognising the important role which Friendship groups and Tourism can play in improving mutual
understanding,

Calls on the governments of the Nine to approach the cultural aspect of the Euro-Arab dialogue in a constructive spirit and to give a higher priority to the popularisation of Arab culture in Europe .

Calls on Arab governments to recognize the political effects of active co-operation with Europe .

Invites national groups of the association to increase the efforts necessary in every country to bring about the objective proposed at Damascus and today at Strasbourg and ask them to inform the Secretariat of the results achieved.

considering the harmful effect of the political situation on Palestinian development,

Condemns - while recognising Israel's right to existence - the Zionist intention of replacing Arab by Jewish culture on Palestinian soil, in order to deprive the Palestinian people of its national identity,

considering that in carrying out excavations within the holy places of Islam in occupied Jerusalem , Israel has
committed a violation of international law despite the warnings of UNESCO,
considering that these excavations can only bring about the inevitable destruction of evidence of Arab culture
and history,

regrets that Unesco's decision not to admit Israel into its European Regional Group has sometimes been exploited with great lack of objectivity.

(3) Final Resolution of the Economic Committee.

The General Assembly of the Parliamentary Association for European Arab Co-operation reaffirms the usefulness and necessity of a close economic co-operation between Europe and the Arab World in the interest of their peoples.
The Assembly expresses its disquiet at the slow progress made in the Euro-Arab dialogue and is concerned with events based on political motives which in the course of recent months have armed Euro-Arab co-operation, i.e. the setting up of the International Energy Agency and the signature of an agreement between the E.E.C. and Israel , before negotiations have been completed between the E.E.C. and Arab countries. In this connection, it insists that economic co-operation between the E.E.C. and Israel must not apply to the occupied territories.
The Assembly considers that there is no conflict between the interests of Europe and the Arab countries, provided that the mercantilist stage is left behind and genuine economic partnership can be established.
This is the perspective within which can best be solved the problem of recycling petro-dollars. These petro-dollars should above all be used for needs of Arab development.
The Assembly calls attention to the role and status of multi-national companies and the potential danger arising from certain of their activities. It expresses the hope that steps may be taken to avoid these dangers.
The Assembly reaffirms the right of every nation to dispose of its own national resources, including the right of nationalisation.
The Association expresses its will to do all in its power to promote Euro-Arab co-operation at national level, within the E.E.C. and through international organisations.

Euro-Arab Parliamentary Dialogue
Brussels , 21-23 June 2002

Algeria - Alg&#233;rie
M. Abdel R Bel-Aiat
M. Najoum Mohamed
M.Mahmoudi Lakhdar
M.Belhadi Miloud
M.Mohamed Dada
Mr. Zahed Messaoud
Mme. Sabah Bournour
Mr. Ferhat Berndifellah
Mr. Abdelaziz Zemri
Mr. Mohammed Guerrout
Mr. Ali Mokrani

Austria - Autriche
Fritz EDLINGER

Belgium - Belgique
Dalila DOUIFI
Marie-Jos&#233; LALOY
Erika THIJS
Denis D’HONDT
Andr&#233; SCHELLENS
Jean CORNIL
Michiel MAERTENS
Pierre LANO
Jacques D’HOOGHE
Fran&#231;ois ROELANTS DU VIVIER
Mirella MINNE
Anne-Marie LIZIN
Paul GALLAND

Bulgaria - Bulgarie
Younal LOUTFI

Denmark – Danemark
Henning GJELLEROD

Egypt- Egypte
Mr.Ahmed A.Z.El Alfi
Mr.Ezz El Din Nassar
Mr.Gamal Abou Zekra
Mr.Jamal Abo Zikra

Estonia - Estonie
Indrek MEELAK

European Parliament - Parlement Europ&#233;en
Luisa MORGANTINI

France
Lo&#239;c BOUVARD

Germany - Allemagne
Monika GANSEFORTH

Iraq -Irak
Dr.Ghaleb A. Al-Jasseml
M.Ali Abdullah A. Al-Thalimi
M.Daood Abdel Kader Salman

Ireland - Irlande
Michael LANIGAN

Italy - Italie
Gian-Guido FOLLONI
M RIVOLTA
Patrizia PAOLETTI
Antonio LOCHE (co-ordinator)

Jordania- Jordanie
M.Thaer Hikmat
M. Bel AIAT
M. Ali Zaioud

Kuwait - Kuweit
M.Muhamed J.Al-Saqr
M.Abdul M.Youssef Jamal

Lebanon - L&#237;ban
M.Cheikh Mika&#235;l Daher
M.Yassine Jaber

Malta - Malte
George VELLA
Victor GALEA PACE

Morocco - Maroc
M.Amin Al-Damnati
M.Omar Asseba'i Assousi
M. Zeidan Mohamed

Netherlands - Pays-Bas
Bert KOENDERS

Palestinia - Palestine
M.Abdullah Abdullah
M.Chaouki Armalli
M.Zouhair Sandouka

Portugal
Edite ESTRELA
Antonio CRUZ SILVA

Saudi Arabia- Arabie Saoudite
S.E.Dr.Al Jaafari
S.E.Dr.Al Shaghroud
S.E.Dr. Al Latif Jamjoum
S.E.Mr.le Conseiller Al Moamar
Prof.Ahmad Badaoui
Prof.Badr Al –Dael

Soudan - Sudan
M.Ahmad I. Al-Taher
Dr.Issma'il Al-Haj Moussa
M.Sayed Mahjoub Ahmad
M.Sa'ed Habib Allah Sa'ed
M.Yasser Khoudhrb Kalaf Allah

Sweden - Su&#232;de
P&#228;r-Axel SAHLBERG

Syria- Syrie
Dr.Hassan Al-Nouri
M.Ibrahim A'abbas
Mme. Nihad Thantah

Tunisia -Tunisie
M. Al Tijani Al-Haddad
M. Hamda Knani
Mme. Afifa Salah

United Arab Emirates - Emirats Arabes Unis
M.Abdel R.Ali Al-Chamissi
M.Abdullah Ali Al-Chouhi

Yemen - Y&#233;men
Mr. Sultan Al-Barakani
Dr. Auras Nagi
Dr. Abdulrahman Bafadel
Mr. Abdelbaqui Abdelrahman

Observers
Peter HANSEN, Commissioner General of UNRWA
Nikolaus VAN DER PAS, Directeur G&#233;n&#233;ral, Commission Europ&#233;enne, DG Education et Culture
Floris DE GOU, Chef de la section politique et secr&#233;taire de la Commission Politique &#224; l’Assembl&#233;e de l’UEO (Paris)
Charles Ferdinand NOTHOMB, ancien minister des affaires etrang&#232;res, Belgique
Bernard ZAMARON, D&#233;l&#233;gu&#233; G&#233;n&#233;ral, Centre Robert Schuman pour l’Europe

AIPU
M.Noureddine E. Bouchkouj (S&#233;cretaire G&#233;n&#233;ral)
M.Mohamed Walid Abdula'al
M.Ahmad Mokayess
M.Did Al-Zanbaq
M. Samir al-Nihqwi
Mme.Layla Nachawati
Mlle.Rawad Asaid
M.Loay Kaddourah

PAEAC - APCEA
Pol MARCK (Secretary General PAEAC)
Johan GEZELS (Executive Director)
Carme GARCIA (Assistant)
Pierre HERMANT (Assistant)

Interprets - Interpr&#232;tes
Lenka JOSZO
Mourad RAMDANI
Mourad KHALLAF
Frances CALDER
Doina ZUGRAVESCU
Anne THOEN
David STEPHENS


What the hell is going on here.

[Redleg]

What the hell is going on here.

Its called politics. European Nations wanting something from Middle Eastern Nations and coming up with a joint resolution so that maybe they can have some type of political, economic relationship.

Pushing Israel to return to the 1967 borders is pretty calm and basic since it falls within the solution that is called for by a United Nations Resolution.

The rest is just political bargianing languge, not to sure if it really means anything or not. Would depend on how each nation is applying THE STRASBOURG RESOLUTIONS to its relatonship with Israel and other Middle-Eastern states.

Open borders has been pushed for awhile - one of the favorite's of the one world government conspiracies advocates. So not to concerned about it since I dont think the one world government has a chance of existing

Most of the other statements fall within the norms I believe for political and economicial relationship building between nations. Only statement that gets me is this one Calls on the governments of the Nine to approach the cultural aspect of the Euro-Arab dialogue in a constructive spirit and to give a higher priority to the popularisation of Arab culture in Europe. Not really sure what this statement means or implies.

One could look upon that statment a number of ways.

[Adrian II]

What the hell is going on here.Simple. It's Fragony buying into more of Bat Ye'or's nonsense. She claims this resolution is solid proof that the EU wants to arabise and islamicize all of Europe.

Ye'or has gone off her rocker long ago. :dizzy2:

[Fragony]

I know of the 1975 resolution where we got sold (read Eurabia by Bat Ye'or, scary as hell), same place also Strassbourg, that is why we have all this. This one was completily unknown to me. Need to get out of this place.


Simple. It's Fragony buying into more of Bat Ye'or's nonsense. She claims this resolution is solid proof that the EU wants to arabise and islamicize all of Europe.

Ye'or has gone off her rocker long ago. :dizzy2:

All been documented, this is why I voted no. And with all due respect you are a journalist working for a pro-euro newspaper.

[Redleg]

Simple. It's Fragony buying into more of Bat Ye'or's nonsense. She claims this resolution is solid proof that the EU wants to arabise and islamicize all of Europe.

Ye'or has gone off her rocker long ago. :dizzy2:

Okay an European political thought that I never understood. An extremist view of what popularisation would imply then is her take on that clause, allowing others to wallow in fear?

[Adrian II]

read Eurabia by Bat Ye'orI have, it's my job, that's why I mentioned her as a source before you did. I'm looking at the Dutch translation right now, I've read it from cover to cover and it's one big load of unsubstantiated balderdash.

You need to get out of this bad company, that's what you need. :yes:

[Fragony]

You need to get out of this bad company, that's what you need. :yes:

Well kindly recommend me a book where it's torn apart piece by piece. There isn't one now is there, sounds like a joy for the intellectuals to shred.

[Adrian II]

Well kindly recommend me a book where it's torn apart piece by piece.OMG can't you do that yourself? Want me to show you how it's done?

OK, page 25, Dutch edition.

Ye'or wrotes: 'Whilst the media were revealing that Al Qaeda was recruiting among students and the higher-educated middle class, the European universities, at the request of the Palestinians, called for an international boycot of Israeli students and researchers. The Protestant churches voted for a boycot of all companies that were doing business in the Hebrew state'.

Now, where would the evidence for all that be? Can you show me any major European university that has called for such a boycot? Maybe there is one obscure establishment somewhere that has, but it is not mainstream at all. From time to time, there are calls and petitions from groups of European academics, but they never garner enough support to even become an issue. Only in Britain have they been vocal enough, but oh dear, universities would have none of it. Last year Britain's University and College Union (UCU) unanimously voted for a recommendation that not only is the call to boycot unlawful under discrimination legislation, but so are debates on the issue at the union's meetings. Consequently, the union cancelled a UK speaking tour in which Palestinian academics would discuss the academic boycott of Israel with their counterparts at UK universities.

It is standing pan-European policy not to indulge these characters. Remember how Bat Ye'or excoriates the European Commission for 'mobilizing all the European media and all the means at its disposal to denounce Israel and to spread the language of Eurabia'? Speaking of hyperbole, eh? Anyway, strangely enough, when confronted with one such boycott petition in 2006, the European Commission cut them short in the following manner:


Today, November 16, 2006, the office of the External Relations Directorate General of the European Commission, stated in a letter addressed to Prof. Yeshurun and Dr. Beck, that the European Commission considers "that measures such as to suspend the support that the EU addresses to academic and scientific co-operation between European and Israeli institutions are contrary to the principles of academic freedom and its objective of encouraging scientific cooperation". The letter, signed by Alain Seatter, head of the EU unit, added that "It is the Commission’s view (which reflects the views of the EU foreign ministers) that positive persuasion and dialogue on respect for international and humanitarian law through the means provided by the legal treaties with Israel is a more effective approach to conveying EU views on issues such as those raised by the academics to whom you refer". The letter concluded that "For this reason, the European Commission has no intention of suspending its programs of co-operation with Israeli institutions".
Linky (http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1436)


Now about those Protestant churches. There is no such joint intention or declaration or report of the Protestant churches of Europe at all. Whatsoever. period.

The only Christian divestment movements against Israel are American. The movement started there, with the Presbyterians and the Methodists. As far as I know the only remotely Protestant church in Europe that ever touched this is the Anglican Chrurch, and it only called for divestment for its own money from companies that support the Israeli occupation, like Caterpillar, the manufacturers of the bulldozers.

And so it goes on, page after hysterical page. If you are unable to debunk such screaming nonsense, you had better not touch political literature at all. I mean it.

[Fragony]

OMG can't you do that yourself? Want me to show you how it's done?

OK, page 25, Dutch edition.

Ye'or wrotes: 'Whilst the media were revealing that Al Qaeda was recruiting among students and the higher-educated middle class, the European universities, at the request of the Palestinians, called for an international boycot of Israeli students and researchers. The Protestant churches voted for a boycot of all companies that were doing business in the Hebrew state'.

Now, where would the evidence for all that be? Can you show me any major European university that has called for such a boycot? Maybe there is one obscure establishment somewhere that has, but it is not mainstream at all. From time to time, there are calls and petitions from groups of European academics, but they never garner enough support to even become an issue. Only in Britain have they been vocal enough, but oh dear, universities would have none of it. Last year Britain's University and College Union (UCU) unanimously voted for a recommendation that not only is the call to boycot unlawful under discrimination legislation, but so are debates on the issue at the union's meetings. Consequently, the union cancelled a UK speaking tour in which Palestinian academics would discuss the academic boycott of Israel with their counterparts at UK universities.

It is standing pan-European policy not to indulge these characters. Remember how Bat Ye'or excoriates the European Commission for 'mobilizing all the European media and all the means at its disposal to denounce Israel and to spread the language of Eurabia'? Speaking of hyperbole, eh? Anyway, strangely enough, when confronted with one such boycott petition in 2006, the European Commission cut them short in the following manner:


Today, November 16, 2006, the office of the External Relations Directorate General of the European Commission, stated in a letter addressed to Prof. Yeshurun and Dr. Beck, that the European Commission considers "that measures such as to suspend the support that the EU addresses to academic and scientific co-operation between European and Israeli institutions are contrary to the principles of academic freedom and its objective of encouraging scientific cooperation". The letter, signed by Alain Seatter, head of the EU unit, added that "It is the Commission’s view (which reflects the views of the EU foreign ministers) that positive persuasion and dialogue on respect for international and humanitarian law through the means provided by the legal treaties with Israel is a more effective approach to conveying EU views on issues such as those raised by the academics to whom you refer". The letter concluded that "For this reason, the European Commission has no intention of suspending its programs of co-operation with Israeli institutions".
Linky (http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1436)


Now about those Protestant churches. There is no such joint intention or declaration or report of the Protestant churches of Europe at all. Whatsoever. period.

The only Christian divestment movements against Israel are American. The movement started there, with the Presbyterians and the Methodists. As far as I know the only remotely Protestant church in Europe that ever touched this is the Anglican Chrurch, and it only called for divestment for its own money from companies that support the Israeli occupation, like Caterpillar, the manufacturers of the bulldozers.

And so it goes on, page after hysterical page. If you are unable to debunk such screaming nonsense, you had better not touch political literature at all. I mean it.

A sense of wonder in the ' how could it be' kind is all you can do? My stomach needs the substantial stuff. All the royals are yapping the same thing. All governments seem to have little priorities other then muslim sentiments and muslim integration. As if we don't have hindu's living here, where's the love for them, maybe they just cause enough trouble? Could be. Need more though. If you are right about all this you sure should find a better way of selling this because I and with me half of the dutch population that sees islam as a threat doesn't buy it. Maybe I am not that good at thinking, I am only 31 year's old and I am trying, you know read stuff from smart people, a lot more then other stupid people do at least. You are losing us mia muca.

[Adrian II]

A sense of wonder in the ' how could it be' kind is all you can do? That's all you have for an answer?

There is nothing to substantiate her claims. I mentioned two of those claims. Where is the declaration of European universities for a boycot of Israel? Is there such a declaration from even 1 European university?
Where is the statement of the Protestant churches in Europe that calls for a boycot of Israel? There is none. Maybe there are some Christian aid organizations that call for a boycott. Well, it's a free continent and it's their money they're talking about, not church money.

This woman is peddling myths and innuendo.

All she does in this book is yap about attempts at European-Arab dialogue and cultural exchange that are a normal part and parcel of politics, exactly as Redleg said. Every country does it, the U.S. and Russia, China, Brazil, you name it.

Not for Bat Ye'or. Every time a European leader shakes the hand of an Arab leader, here she comes running down the block screaming "Betrayal, they're selling us out!" :dozey:

[LittleGrizzly]

Arabs or muslims who have embraced some of the basic tenants of what we consider enlightened thought here in the West, I have few problems with. These would include such basic freedoms as those of thought and expression. Oh, and the strange habit of not subjugating women.

So basically is not arab's or muslims you dislike/hate/fear its a certain thought process. The way you wrote it is similar to saying you dislike black people and then going onto say its just lazy black people you have a problem with. That just seems like a cover for racism because the correct statement is you dislike lazy people.

Are you equal with this criticism of people ? if there was a society that kept a people down because of thier nationality, occupied foriegn terroritorys and took a large percentage of essential resources like water to keep for thier 'own people' would you think as badly of these people ?

In other words, do they want to be the Native Americans who wallow in poverty and drunkenness, complaining about how their land was stolen - or do they want to be the Native Americans bringing in millions who just bought Hard Rock.

Im sure the palestinians would love to be bringing in millions but unfortunatly unlike USA, israel does not try to make up for the fact they took this land of the palestinians, infact in israel they seemingly go out of thier way to make life as miserable as possible.

The arabs continue to start wars, lose land, and then somehow expect for it to be given right back.

Since when did might = right ?

If the situation came up where an arab allaince overwhelmed israel militarily it wouldn't make it right for them to do as they please just because they are the victors and similarly with israel winning a few wars in the region does not give you the right to do whatever you please...

I wonder if they would do the same if they didn't suck so much at military operations. Probably would, as they're so invested in making themselves seem oppressed

You make me laugh, when the superpower of the region constantly calls racism or anti-semitism at the slightest sign of critcism, hell you'd think they were the ones being oppressed, at least the palestinians have the excuse of actually being oppressed

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

There is nothing to substantiate her claims. I mentioned two of those claims. Where is the declaration of European universities for a boycot of Israel? Is there such a declaration from even 1 European university?
Where is the statement of the Protestant churches in Europe that calls for a boycot of Israel? There is none. Maybe there are some Christian aid organizations that call for a boycott. Well, it's a free continent and it's their money they're talking about, not church money.

The student's union here at UCL voted through a "Friends of Palestine" motion, pledging that UCLU was against the illegal occupation of Palestine, and condemning Israel, at the end of last term. However, this occured at an AGM with several procedural irregularities, and was overturned on those grounds. In any case, it was against the Union Charter, so the provost would have intervened.

[Fragony]

That's all you have for an answer?

There is nothing to substantiate her claims. I mentioned two of those claims. Where is the declaration of European universities for a boycot of Israel? Is there such a declaration from even 1 European university?
Where is the statement of the Protestant churches in Europe that calls for a boycot of Israel? There is none. Maybe there are some Christian aid organizations that call for a boycott. Well, it's a free continent and it's their money they're talking about, not church money.

This woman is peddling myths and innuendo.


Well if she is right it could have been given a spin in the right direction with all the tools at hand at the moment, not saying she is right of course but there is about 400 pages of recorded meetings and there even are apendixes and references, I am not easily fooled but that gets me every time.

[Adrian II]

Well if she is right it could have been given a spin in the right direction with all the tools at hand at the moment [..]God help me.. What spin? What tools?

THERE IS NO EUROPEAN ACADEMIC BOYCOT OF ISRAEL.

Look here, a special party (http://www.delisr.ec.europa.eu/newsletter/english/default.asp?edt_id=19&id=278) was thrown to celebrate relations in 2006.


Stressing the values shared by the European Union and Israel, Ambassador Cibrian -Uzal mentioned that the European Union is Israel's main trade partner, that for a decade Israel has been a member of the European Union's R&D programmes and has also joined Galileo - the EU's satellite navigation project. Moreover, the European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan mutually agreed upon included the possibility of fully integrating Israel in the European Union's Internal Market. [..] May 9 also saw the publication of 'The European Connection' a newspaper supplement on how Israelis and Europeans inter-connect in the fields of music, fashion, business, science and more. 'Studying in Europe,' a Hebrew language guide designed for Israeli students produced with the help of all EU Member State embassies was also issued on May 9 and quickly proved to be extremely popular with Israeli students.

Linky (http://www.delisr.ec.europa.eu/newsletter/english/default.asp?edt_id=19&id=278)

[Fragony]

I didn't bring that up kinda pointless to attack a position that was never taken, european boycott of universities wut, never heard of it. What I do see is a rather odd love for everything islam.

[Beirut]

We're operating on different levels. Im making a legal argument and you are offering an emotional one.

The two intertwine nicely, evidenced by your own Declaration of Independence (which one may view as both a legal and emotional document) which states with blazing insight into the human condition:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


To be very honest, I do not think Israel was a good idea.

On this we agree.


If I were Truman, I would have offered some of the vast swathes of government owned American land for the Jews to come and settle in. Make it its's own stat. It certainly would have helped the economy. :yes:

Interesting proposition. You'll love the food.


Unfortunately, the nation of Israel was created, and it was well within the UN's authority to let that happen.

Says who? The UN?

Interesting that most of the countries who backed it didn't live anywhere near the affected area and the people who thought it was a terrible idea had the reality of it dumped in their front yard.


The time to fight against its creation - through petitions to the UN or through military force - was in 1947.

Agreed.


Each successive decade that passes makes the failure of palestinians to accept peace, or even Israel itself, even more ridiculous. Each infatada, each school bus blown up, each nightclub slaughter, and each rocket fired into urban areas makes the heavy-handed retaliations of the Israelis a little bit more justified.

Each successive decade that passes makes the failure of the Israelis to accept peace, or even Palestine itself, even more ridiculous. Each invasion, each school blown up, each market slaughter, and each rocket fired into urban areas makes the heavy-handed retaliations of the Palestinians a little bit more justified.


You know, my father was very much indoctrinated into the Nazi war machine through the Hitler Youth. In '45, he simply could not - would not - believe Germany had lost. It was a terrible thing for such a small boy to have believed with all his heart that Germany was right and would win, and then to see his neighborhood patrolled by foreign soldiers.

However, 63 years later, it has sunken in. In fact, reality came to him far sooner than that, and he was able to move on and make something of himself. Palestinians could learn from such an example.

After several bad post-war years, Germany was freed. Palestine, what there is left of it, remains a prison.


In other words, do they want to be the Native Americans who wallow in poverty and drunkenness, complaining about how their land was stolen - or do they want to be the Native Americans bringing in millions who just bought Hard Rock.

How can they prosper when no one will even talk to them? My own stupid stupid Canadian federal goverment won't talk to the Palestinians. And when those leftie weak-kneed commie Canadians won't even talk to you, who will?


Sometimes you just have to move on. Everyone has OK'd a palestinian state except the palestinians.

The offers so far do nothing but legitimize their captivity. Let's see the real deal. Let's see the UN and the US push an honest solution and let's see the Arab countries float some serious cash into the area and fix things up.

[Tribesman]

Clear enough?

Yes Panzer clear enough , its clear enough that you have racist and religionist views and are talking crap based on those , though of course that process generally goes hand in hand .


We're operating on different levels. Im making a legal argument and you are offering an emotional one.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: and that is where you screw up badly since your "legal" arguement has no basis in law and even the Israeli courts don't agree with you .
So you are making neither a legal arguement nor an emotional one just a baseless one ...and I really hate to break it to ya Panzer but a baseless arguement is a errrrrr......baseless arguement .
Here let me explain in simple terms that you may be able to grasp .
Your arguement + a law that supports that arguement = a possible legal arguement .
Your arguement + lots of laws that directly contradict that arguement= you talking bollox .
Its so simple isn't it :yes:

Beirut...
Says who? The UN?

all you have to do to destroy the credibilty of that claim is quote this clause from the basis of the move it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine ..it cearly shows that the UN could not and should not have taken the action it did and claim to be still acting within the terms that it itself approved , by acting outside the terms in destroyed any claim of legality over partition .



Louis , that is a fine post you wrote . Ordinary decent Isrealis are being persecuted and driven out by the nutters and by the Israeli governments strange practice of pandering to the nutters both in Israel and abroad .

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Short of the dissolution of Israel (ties in with Beirut', or its eradication by violence, does anyone here see a viable solution?

If not, let's allow them to talk/kill at their own pace until they reach an ending.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes Panzer clear enough , its clear enough that you have racist and religionist views and are talking crap based on those , though of course that process generally goes hand in hand .


Religionist? :laugh4:

What a pathetic attempt to stifle the discussion. :no:

Why is it that the intellectually dishonest on the left such as yourself insist on attaching an “-ist” to any sort of judgment that you do not agree with?

Religion is an ideology, not a condition. Unlike things such as race and sex, one’s religion is a deliberate and thoughtful consideration. In that vein, it is – or at least should be – open to criticism and yes, even judgments about the values it espouses.

So am I religionist against the strains of islam common in the Middle East. You’re damned right I am.

I will take every opportunity to point out that islam in the arab world represents the worst of humanity. I will never ignore the complete subjugation of women, in which such perverted, disgusting things such as punishing victims for their own rapes are common. I won’t look past the complete lack of basic human rights. I cannot simply overlook the torture and executions of homosexuals and other “undesirables”. None of us should ignore or attempt to explain away the hatred bred for outsiders within the “religion of peace”, unlike any other major religion in the world today.

You should be ashamed of how easily you can ignore these realities – whether they come from shias or sunnis, Iran or Saudi Arabia - and yes, even Palestine. :shame:

You consistently attempt to discredit me by calling me a racist, a nazi, and now even a religionist(!), yet I consistently stand up for the millions of people oppressed by islam, most of them arabs themselves.

Islam in the Middle East is a hate filled ideology used by arabs to subjugate their own minorities and lash out at outsiders. It has left a once thriving civilization in the Middle Ages and cleverly directs people’s anger at their situation towards the West. It contributes nothing to humanity, and has cost us all – Westerners and Middle Easterners – too much for too long. Christianity went through this – hundreds of years ago.

The inordinate focus on violence rampant in islam itself plays a large part in the inability of the Palestinians and the arab world to reach compromise. Compromise is weakness while total annihilation of the Jewish menace is the ultimate martyrdom. Insanity. :dizzy2:






Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
To be very honest, I do not think Israel was a good idea.


On this we agree.

I think thats more progress than has been made in 50 years of this conflict. Now what should be done about it?

[Adrian II]

Short of the dissolution of Israel (ties in with Beirut', or its eradication by violence, does anyone here see a viable solution?

If not, let's allow them to talk/kill at their own pace until they reach an ending.You mean Israelis and Palestinians? Or the gentlemen involved in the "My chicken got there first - Yeah, but it was hatched from my egg" debate?

The former would be totally un-you.

Don Corleone That was another classic post of yours, frank and well-considered. But how oddly pessimistic, certainly when compared to your views about other pressing issues (for instance China's development). And if I know my Israelis, I would hit your Jewish relocation to the U.S. plan with the IPCF* stamp and file it under 'Ideas I'd better not show my Israeli friends'. It's just not in the cards, I think. Certainly not their cards.

* If Pigs Could Fly

[Tribesman]

What a pathetic attempt to stifle the discussion.
What discussion Panzer ? you claim history with apparently very little knowledge of the history , you claim legality with no legal arguement whatsoever , you claim culture and religeon but with narrow minded bigoted views trying to cover a very wide and complex issue .
In short Panzer it isn't a pathetic attempt to stifle discussion , it is your pathetic attempt to take part in one that is the problem .

[PanzerJaeger]

What discussion Panzer ?

The one in which you consistently accuse me of all sorts of evil "ists" without anything to back it up, while at the same time defending jew hating, misogynist, homophobic thugs. Its such a complex issue though, huh? :stupido3:

As for my legal and historical claims, it is interesting to compare those nations and world bodies that recognize Israel's right to exist and those that do not.

Oh, and next time you decide to come up with a new label for me, you might want to look it up. You so terribly misused religionist its almost... pathetic? :study:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen

I know this is a radical, even revolutionary notion, but perchance we could resort to constructing arguments and debate, rather than flinging insults at one another?

If one finds one's opponent may be in error, the polite thing to do would be to persuade him using evidence and compelling exposition. Shouting belittlement across the no man's land is unhelpful in this regard.

I know, it'll never catch on - but try it - you might like it.

:bow:

[drone]

Richard Holbrooke put this in the WaPo today, about what Truman faced with statehood looming. Thought it was interesting...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050602447.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
In the celebrations next week surrounding Israel's 60th anniversary, it should not be forgotten that there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. It led to the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George C. Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.

The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.

The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. . . ."

[Tribesman]

The one in which you consistently accuse me of all sorts of evil "ists" without anything to back it up, while at the same time defending jew hating, misogynist, homophobic thugs. Its such a complex issue though, huh?
oh dear panzer its your own words that back up what I say , oh and BTW when do I defend jew hating misogynist homophobic thugs ?


As for my legal and historical claims, it is interesting to compare those nations and world bodies that recognize Israel's right to exist and those that do not.

Interesting is it ? can you identify any nation that recognises Israels right of existance in the territory it claims is Israel ? Even your own government doesn't recognise it because it is illegal .


Oh, and next time you decide to come up with a new label for me, you might want to look it up. You so terribly misused religionist its almost... pathetic?
Errrr.... Panzer it is defined as someone with zealous views about religion , you are very zealous about Islam , it makes no distincion about whether the strongly held almost fantical views are in favour or opposed to the religion in question . So it isn't misused at all . :idea2:


Richard Holbrooke put this in the WaPo today, about what Truman faced with statehood looming. Thought it was interesting...

Don't go there Drone , when I quoted Truman before and his views on the establishment of the State I was accused of being a rabid anti semite who had just showed that I really really hated Jews ...though apparently that was because someone thought it was my words rather than their presidents .~;)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Johann Hari clearly got a few emails along the lines of Baba's viewpoint, and replies forcefully (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-loathsome-smearing-of-israels-critics-822751.html). In the process, amply demonstrating Tribesman's point that a significant majority of Israelis are interested in their government actually trying to talk constructively.

Johann Hari: The loathsome smearing of Israel's critics

Thursday, 8 May 2008

In the US and Britain, there is a campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people. It is an attempt to intimidate and silence – and to a large degree, it works. There is nobody these self-appointed spokesmen for Israel will not attack as anti-Jewish: liberal Jews, rabbis, even Holocaust survivors.

My own case isn't especially important, but it illustrates how the wider process of intimidation works. I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; when I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me "a Jew-lover", "a Zionist-homo pig" and more.

Ah, but wait. I have also reported from Gaza and the West Bank. Last week, I wrote an article that described how untreated sewage was being pumped from illegal Israeli settlements on to Palestinian land, contaminating their reservoirs. This isn't controversial. It has been documented by Friends of the Earth, and I have seen it with my own eyes.

The response? There was little attempt to dispute the facts I offered. Instead, some of the most high profile "pro-Israel" writers and media monitoring groups – including Honest Reporting and Camera – said I an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels and Mahmoud Ahmadinejadh, while Melanie Phillips even linked the stabbing of two Jewish people in North London to articles like mine. Vast numbers of e-mails came flooding in calling for me to be sacked.

Any attempt to describe accurately the situation for Palestinians is met like this. If you recount the pumping of sewage onto Palestinian land, "Honest Reporting" claims you are reviving the anti-Semitic myth of Jews "poisoning the wells." If you interview a woman whose baby died in 2002 because she was detained – in labour – by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint within the West Bank, "Honest Reporting" will say you didn't explain "the real cause": the election of Hamas in, um, 2006. And on, and on.

The former editor of Israel's leading newspaper, Ha'aretz, David Landau, calls the behaviour of these groups "nascent McCarthyism". Those responsible hold extreme positions of their own that place them way to the right of most Israelis. Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips are two of the most prominent figures sent in to attack anyone who disagrees with the Israeli right. Dershowitz is a lawyer, Harvard professor and author of The Case For Israel. He sees ethnic cleansing as a trifling matter, writing: "Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary ... It is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal." If a prominent American figure takes a position on Israel to the left of this, Dershowitz often takes to the airwaves to call them anti-Semites and bigots.

The journalist Melanie Phillips performs a similar role in Britain. Last year a group called Independent Jewish Voices was established with this mission statement: "Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peace and security." Jews including Mike Leigh, Stephen Fry and Rabbi David Goldberg joined. Phillips swiftly dubbed them "Jews For Genocide", and said they "encourage" the "killers" of Jews. Where does this come from? She says the Palestinians are an "artificial" people who can be collectively punished because they are "a terrorist population". She believes that while "individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project". Honest Reporting quotes Phillips as a model of reliable reporting.

These individuals spray accusations of anti-Semitism so liberally that by their standards, a majority of Jewish Israelis have anti-Semitic tendencies. Dershowitz said Jimmy Carter's decision to speak to the elected Hamas government "border[ed] on anti-Semitism." A Ha'aretz poll last month found that 64 per cent of Israelis want their government to do just that.

As US President, Jimmy Carter showed his commitment to Israel by giving it more aid than anywhere else and brokering the only peace deal with an Arab regime the country has ever enjoyed. He also wants to see a safe and secure Palestine alongside it – so last year he wrote a book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It is a bland and factual canter through the major human rights reports. There is nothing there you can't read in the mainstream Israeli press every day. Carter's comparison of life on the West Bank (not within Israel) to Apartheid South Africa is not new. The West Bank is ruled in the interests of a small Jewish minority; it is bisected by roads for the Jewish settlers from which Palestinians are banned. The Israeli human rights group B'tselem says this "bears striking similarities to the racist Apartheid regime". Yet for repeating these facts in the US, Carter has widely called "a racist". Several universities have even refused to let the ex-President speak to their students.

These campus battles often succeed. Norman Finkelstein is a political scientist in the US whose parents were both Jewish survivors of the Warsaw ghetto and the Nazi concentration camps. They lost every blood relative. He made his reputation exposing a hoax called From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty when Zionist settlers arrived, and the people claiming to be Palestinians were mostly impostors who had come from local areas to cash in. Finkelstein showed it to be scarred by falsified figures and gross misreading of sources. From that moment on, he was smeared as an anti-Semite by those who had lauded the book. But it was when Finkelstein revealed two years ago that Alan Dershowitz had, without acknowledgement, drawn wholesale from Peters' hoax for his book The Case For Israel, that the worst began. Dershowitz campaigned to make sure Finkelstein was denied tenure at his university. He even claimed that Finkelstein's mother – who made it through Maidenek and two slave-labour camps – had collaborated with the Nazis. The campaign worked. Finkelstein was let go by De Paul University, simply for speaking the truth.

Are the likes of Dershowitz and Phillips and Honest Reporting becoming more shrill because they can sense they are losing the argument? Liberal Jews – the majority – are now setting up rivals to the hard-right organisations they work with, because they believe this campaign of demonisation is damaging us all. It damages the Palestinians, because it prevents honest discussion of their plight. It damages the Israelis, because it pushes them further down an aggressive and futile path. And it damages diaspora Jews, because it makes real anti-Semitism harder to deal with.

We need to look the witch-hunters in the eye and say, as Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy himself: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"