BS: A very Arab obsession

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 10:06 PM

That's pretty amusing, Martin Gibson, and more than a little ironic, coming from someone as brainwashed as you.

You may get your own coffee.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 07:31 PM

Killing yourself in the process of killing your enemy is hardly a new thing. Samson's death has generally been regarded as heroic rather than insane. Perhaps it was both.

Suicide bombing is a horrible thing, which erupted in reprisal for some horrible things (done in reprisal for othe rhorrible things...etc etc), and it has been used to justify other horrible things in reprisal. The whole cycle of violence is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 03:17 PM

Carol C., honey

Would you please get me a cup of coffee?

And while you're at it, please call your psychiatrist. He wants to talk to you about why you think people can be so desparate that they can blow themselves up. He wants to talk to you about Moslem brainwashing.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 02:04 PM

Hello Frank,

Some points:

"The closing of a waterway could be construed as an act of war.
But the response was unilateral as it seems to be always with Israel."

Indeed the closing of the Strait of Tiran could be construed as an act of war. The Egyptians were told in no uncertain terms in 1958 that is how such an action would be viewed. Now then Frank, was this waterway closed with the agreement of the international community or did Egypt act unilaterally? I get it Frank, OK for one but not for the other.

So - "The amassing of troops on the border is posturing. Israel
does it all the time." Really, how about when the massing of troops is accompanied by some very specific threats - still posturing Frank? Under such circumstances you would presumably just ignore it and do absolutely nothing about it, in the relistic hope that they will all just go away. In 1967 there was no point in Israel complaining to the UN, Nasser had just told the UN to get their peace-keeping force (UNEF) the hell out of Sinai in order that he could mass his troops and armour on the Israeli border - The UN's reaction? Oh! certainly Mr. Nasser, how fast do you want us out of there.

As to the armed forces arrayed against Israel, at the time Frank the order of battle was as follows (these are factual and can easily be checked):

Sinai - Egyptian Forces - 7 Divisions (5 Infantry; 2 Armoured; Supporting Artillery) Corresponds to 21 Brigades (15 Infantry; 6 Armoured)

Sinai - Israeli - 3 Divisions (4 Infantry Brigades; 5 Armoured)

Jordan - Jordanian - West Bank - 9 Brigades 300 Tanks
Jordan - Israeli - West Bank - 5 Brigades (2 Armoured; 1 Mechanised; 1 Infantry; 1 Paratroop)

Jordan Valley - Jordanian - 2 Brigades (1 Infantry; 1 Armoured)
Jordan Valley - Israeli - 2 Brigades (1 Infantry; 1 Armoured*)

Golan - Syrian - 9 Brigades
Golan - Israeli - 3 Brigades (1 Armoured; 2 Infantry) later reinforced by Pele's armour (French AMX-13 Armoured Cars) from Jordan Valley.

Combat Aircraft Egypt; Syria & Jordan - 700
Combat Aircraft Israel - 200

Let's see Israel outnumbered in Sinai, on the Golan Heights and on the West Bank. Arab and Israeli forces had parity in the Jordan Valley. In terms of air power the Israeli's are outnumbered 3,5 to 1. Don't know about you Frank, but for someone going into the attack, from the Israeli point of view that looks a tough enough hill to climb. From the Arab side looks pretty good - the rule of thumb being generally that you require a numerical advantage of at least 3 to 1 to attack. From that perspective Frank, which at the time was, and it still may be the case, who was going to attack who.

In June 1967, had the Israeli's just sat tight and not done a thing, what do you think would have happened. Having swept the UNEF out of the Sinai and parked his Army on the Israeli border, having arranged all his pacts with the other Arab nations and got them to do the same, having blasted the world and it's uncle about what they were going to do to Israel - What was Nasser going to do? What options do you think he had? Just say, "Sorry boys my mistake they didn't buy it, lets go home." - Hell as like Frank and you know it - you just won't admit it. If Nasser had not attacked he knew he would be finished both domestically and internationally. Same in any situation you push somebody hard enough and put them in a corner - do not be surprised if they come out swinging, and you had better be prepared for it. Fortunately in this instance Egypt, Syria and Jordan were totally inept.

As for your statement - "Israel has had a pipeline to
nuclear weapons for quite a while." - Not in 1967 they hadn't.

Regarding the 1973 "Yom Kippur War" Frank, go back to what you originally said with regard to the Arab posturing in 1967. About how had they been serious in 1967 they would have kept quiet and just attacked, which explains my reference to 1973.

Provocation on the part of Israeli in 1973, as far as Egypt, Syria and Iraq were concerned, centred on the fact that they had lost in 1948, they had lost in 1956 and they had lost in 1967. Go to any history of the period Frank and the words that ring throughout the articles and reports describing the simultaneous attacks by Egypt and Syria are "unexpected", "surprise" and "unprovoked". Now Israeli intelligence has normally been very good, Mossad tend to be pretty much "on the ball" when it comes to Israel's national security. How come the Israeli's were not even mobilised when those attacks took place Frank - minor abhoration? bit of a "fuck-up" Mossad were going to advise the Israeli Government after the holiday? No Frank they were not mobilised because those attacks were not expected, they did come as one hell of a surprise to the Israelis - ergo under such circumstances they cannot possibly have been provoked by the Israelis.

So, according to you - "Israel would use the nuclear weaponry. That's a given." - Really? When 1967 or 1973? It's a given is it Frank - Then one question relates more to 1973 than 1967 - Why didn't they, because for three days Frank until Israel could get their reserves mobilised and up to the frontlines they were on the ropes and looking down-right shakey. Why didn't they use the nuclear weapons you say they had?

I contend that I have yet to hear any threat on the part of Israel to "wipe out" any of its neighbours. Your rejoinder to that is:

"My point. They didn't posture. They acted. And they are wiping
out their neighbors now."

Now I take that as a point of concession by ommission on your part Frank, i.e. that Israel has not ever threatened it's neighbours with "exermination", "eradication" and annihilation". And by way of just impressing that point Frank I'll run through the list:
Has Israel "wiped out" Egypt - No.
Has Israel "wiped out" Jordan - No, but incidentally Yasser Arafat and his boys (PLO) had a damn good crack at it. But there again Yasser is not in the least bothered about how many Arabs die to keep him in clover - he learned that from his Uncle.
Has Israel "wiped out" Syria - No.
Has Israel "wiped out" Lebanon - No, they occupied part of it for a while after Syria invaded it, then withdrew.

Of the land captured in 1967, Israel has returned 93% of it in bi-lateral agreements that secure recognition of the State of Israel and security. That's a hell of a lot to ask isn't it Frank? Just downright unreasonable - but for some reason these agreements have held.

Now let's take a look in detail at:
"I never made the assumption that the UN got in the way. Quite
the contrary. But the British had their own agenda. No one country can broker compromises. But the UN potentially can."

First sentence no you didn't I did.

Your second sentence, absolute bollocks, it was UN inaction and apathy that the Arab frontline states declared was their reason for launching their attack on Israel in 1973.

Your third sentence, what was the British agenda in Palestine Frank? They were given a 27 year Mandate under the League of Nations and that Mandate was due to expire in 1947, during the mandate period Britain tried unsuccessfully to establish a balance, a compromise acceptable to both parties, what was the agenda Frank?.

Your fourth sentence, Norway seems to be quite good at it.

Your fifth sentence, your faith in the UN is inspiring - please write to them, try and inspire their collective, lethargic, self-interest motivated arses into some form of action on something to do with this region. That august body was one of the first to recognise the sovereignty of the State of Israel in 1948 and so far (56 bloody years later) it has managed to achieve the square-root of sod-all.

Frank, go rake through any assortment of translations of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi, any Arab states newspapers for the last 56 years. Look for articles, editorials and coverage of political speeches relating to Israel. Then come back and tell me that they have not demonized the Israeli people. Time after time the political leaders of those countries have favoured military action in place of negotiation, every time they lose they expect to be able to come back to the table and accept the terms they rejected before their embarassing defeats. Not once, not twice, not thrice, not four times, but five times they have done this - If you want to talk about political realities, Frank - How long a bloody learning curve are they on. Not opinion Frank, Fact.

This one I liked Frank it gave me a bit of a laugh:

"The 1967 or '73 wars did not avert WWIII. If anything it makes it
more possible for them to occur today." It is now 2004, Israeli victories in 1967 and 1973 have averted WW III for 37 and 31 years respectively and continue to do so. The prospect of a major conflict arising out of the situation in the middle-east is getting less and less, everybody is getting bored with it, pan-arabism is dead, three of the four Arab frontline states have reached agreement with Israel. Lybia has decided to move on, Iraq is no longer in a position to finance Palestinian terrorist groups, Iran has more than enough to contend with in the arena of domestic politics. Only Syria remains trapped in the time warp.

Here's the bottom line as I see it Frank.
1. The year 1948 is not going to come back for Arab or for Israeli. Accept it and move on, countries currently hosting Palestinian refugees should offer them the option of citizenship instead of just using them a political pawns.
2. It will not matter one jot to either the Israeli people, or to any Israeli Government, how many suicide bombers are sent. The State of Israel is a fact, it is not going to go away.
3. What the Palestinians need more than anything else is political leadership, for as long as they standby Yasser Arafat they are doomed, because he does not want to see an end to this, he does not want to see the problem solved.
4. There is no one country in the world PERIOD that can act as an honest broker in this situation until all the parties involved are prepared to compromise and are genuinely interested in a peace that includes a free, and secure state of Israel, as a long term goal

As said previously, your faith in the UN is astonishing. Their track record is absolutely appalling. The impetus required to reform the UN will be met by the same numbing inertia that has governed it's actions since the day it was formed. It is an international talking shop of political opportunists and back-scratchers, totally motivated by self-interest, from the smallest nation up. The lottery prize is election to the Security Council in times of international tension, then you can bargain your vote on whatever topic in order to rake in some extra aid, or clinch a favourable trade deal. If you believe for one minute it has ever had anything to do with right, or wrong, justice and impartiality, then you are deluding yourself. Unfortunately there is just too much self-interest in keeping things exactly as they are at the UN if you are looking for change - then don't hold your breath, it is not going to be happening soon.

There is no fork in the road, the world has begun to realise that the participants of this circus have to get down to business and mean it. There will be no annihilation of Israel, or any other country in the region for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jan 04 - 05:49 AM

But he didn't say "I'm 22 years old, and I've never seen a beautiful day, I wish my mother would blow herself up."

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 11:38 PM

It's easy to judge. I saw a young Palestinian man in a refugee camp in one of the Occupied Territories on TV once saying, "I'm 22 years old, and I've never seen a beautiful day".

Unless you, as a mother, should ever face a situation like that one for your child, you'll never really know what drove that woman to do what she did.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 09:25 PM

I disagree,I think there have always been insane women, whose insanity is stronger than their maternal instinct. Exercising that insanity in the name of a cause doesn't make it any more noble/defendable/right.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 09:14 PM

I think the last few decades have somewhat weakened our collective maternal instinct. mg

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 08:56 PM

If her instinct is NOT to protect/love for/care for her child,that she bore....then I will stand by my "insane." If she isn't insane, then she is incredibly selfish to the umpth degree.I would not even want to begin to understand/defend that.
Anyone who believes fighting for a cause,should be stronger than maternal instinct, is not displaying the basic humanity that has provided us with our population.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM

A woman who carries a baby in her womb for nine months, goes through a hellish labour to give birth, and then blows herself skyhigh, leaving a child motherless,IS insane.

...or very, very desperate.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM

A woman who carries a baby in her womb for nine months, goes through a hellish labour to give birth, and then blows herself skyhigh, leaving a child motherless,IS insane.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM

Well, Martin baby, I would submit that civilized, intelligent, and SANE people don't oppress whole populations of fairly defenseless people and deny them any sort of basic human rights. And they don't serve in state militaries that are committing crimes against humanity. And they don't commit ethnic cleansing.

And I would further submit that the sanity and intelligence of people who strive for supremacy based on ethnicity and/or religion ought to be called into question as well.

And I would submit, even further, that it's not entirely sane for people to submit willingly to being mistreated. Any member of the mental health profession can tell you that. It is a sign of sanity for people to try to escape oppression, and even for people to lay down their lives in order to promote freedom for their loved ones. People in the US military do it all the time. Fortunately for them, they have a state run military in which they can serve in order to accomplish this. The Palestinians don't have a state run military in which they can serve in order to promote freedom for their people. They have nothing but their own lives and a few explosives.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM

McGrath

You get the "Huh? of the month club award" for that.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM

So she most definitely was not even invoking the name of Allah. Well, she might well have been, actually, since she'd have been speaking Arabic - "Allah" is the word for God in Arabic. One God, Muslim, Christian or Jewish. As evidenced in Arabic translations of the Bible. New Testament or Old Testament
.........................

Killing civilians, as a way of trying to achieve some kind of "point", is of course a very common thing to do in many conflicts. It's a horrible thing, whether it is done using tanks or missiles or bombs. In most wars the number of civilians killed is far higher than the number of military.

There are many precedents for suicide missions as well involving Christians and Jews.

Supposedly civilised and intelligent people do these things. Perhaps sometimes they are not really sane. And perhaps sometimes they are what is called "sane". However, what they do is itself insane. But I can't see that it becomes any saner, just because the perpetrator might make sure to stay out of harm's way.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 04:14 PM

They blow themselves up because they are fucking crazy.

The Christian one was fucking crazy, also.

Civilized, intelligent, and SANE people don't do things like this to make a point, Carol baby.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 02:52 PM

They're not blowing themselves up for Allah. Some of them may invoke the name of Allah when they blow themselves up, but the reason they blow themselves up is to secure their freedom.

On the radio a few months ago, I heard an interview with someone who wrote a book about research he did on the reasons there are suicide bombers. He was able to establish that suicide bombing is pretty much always done by people whose countries are under occupation by a foriegn power.

Lastly, at least one Palestinian suicide bomber was a Christian. So she most definitely was not even invoking the name of Allah when she blew herself up.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM

Unbelievable

I just heard that this thread has just paved the way for total peace in the middleeast!

The UN has just read everybody's wisdom here to the Arabs and the Israelis. The Arabs have decided that they were wrong and have realized that blowing themselves up in the name of Allah has only served them piecemeal (sic).

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 02:29 PM

To continue, Teribus,

You say,

"On both proposed partition settlements your assumption that somehow the British (then latterly the UN) got in the way is correct. It always is the burden of those trying to broker any sort of compromise between sides unwilling to compromise."

I never made the assumption that the UN got in the way. Quite
the contrary. But the British had their own agenda. No one country can broker compromises. But the UN potentially can.


You also say,

" The agreements are fragile and difficult for those "Arab "
countries involved because it is difficult for their populations
to rationalise how their governments, who for the last forty years
have been demonizing the Jews in Israel can suddenly make such agreements."

This again is an opinion, not a fact. It isn't necessarilly that the agreements are breached based on "demonization" but possibly more on agressive Israeli behavior. The "demonization" has been tempered
through the years by political realities.

The 1967 or '73 wars did not avert WWIII. If anything it makes it
more possible for them to occur today.

Here's the bottom line as I see it. Both Israel and the Arab
countries are possibly headed on a collision course due to
political intractibility. Expansion of Israeli land is contributory.
The knee-jerk unacceptance of the state of Israel on the part
of some of the Arab communities won't work either.

Israel can't attack Palestine because there is no Palestinian
state but I believe the the Palestinian people will become more militant than they are now. Israel may decide to do "ethnic cleansing". Even then, there can only be more suicide bombings and casualties on both sides.


There is no one country in the world including the US or Britain
that can act as an honest broker in this situation because
each of these countries has a political agenda that guides
it's motives.

The only answer is a strong UN that is not ignored for political
convenience by the powerful nations of the world.

The fork in the road... leading to annihilation of Israel and
many of the Arab countries....or leading to a peaceful
multilateral compromise that is agreed to by the warring parties brokered by a world body such as the UN.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 01:10 PM

Hi Teribus,

The closing of a waterway could be construed as an act of war.
But the response was unilateral as it seems to be always with Israel.


The amassing of troops on the border is a posturing. Israel
does it all the time. So does the US.

The armed forces arrayed against Israel, at the time Frank, were massive in relation to the force that Israel could muster for her defence."

This is an opinion, not a fact. Israel has had a pipeline to
nuclear weapons for quite a while.

"You mean like they did in 1973 Frank?"

Did they? In 1973? Completely unprovoked? Don't buy it. Prove that
it was unprovoked.

"The fact that they screwed it up in 1967 in no way detracts from either their ability or their intent."

This again is opinion, not fact. Their ability was not there.
Their intent might have been sheer posturing as it was with the
USSR. Israel would use the nuclear weaponry. That's a given.

"but I have yet to hear any threat on the part of Israel to "wipe out" any of its neighbours,"

My point. They didn't posture. They acted. And they are wiping
out their neighbors now.

As regarding the Arabs of the region, none of them have cared
about the Palestinians.   Everybody in that area just wished
they'd go away.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 11:46 AM

Carol and Teribus,

there's hardly anything you disagree about here as far as facts go. Husseini was appointed by the British as Mufti according to citations from both of you. About all the dark pages in history written by him your citations agree. Carol even, helpful with links as always, links to a page which says he was Arafat's uncle.

All disagreement seems to be
(1) whether he later (after his appointment) had the title Grand Mufti or not and if yes if the British were reponsible for that and
(2) how much of the blame for all evil deeds during many decades lays with the British for appointing him.

Not enough of disagreement for a prolonged quarrel.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 11:20 AM

Teribus, your post supports my main contention, which is that the Palestinians are just as much victims of Haj Amin al-Husseini as were the Jews in that region and at that time. More so, I would say, because the Palestinians are still being punished for the actions of a man they didn't want, and whom they didn't support or ask to have put in a position of power. And since it was the British who did that, the Palestinians are victims of the British as well.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Jan 04 - 10:53 AM

CarolC 25 Jan 04 - 09:51 PM

"Teribus, you only state things as facts. You don't provide any documentation. I have provided documentation. Why should I accept your statements of fact without documentation?"

What documentation CarolC - what you provide are links to support your viewpoint - that is all.

Now for any wishing to go through the exercise they can Google Haj Amin al-Husseini (1893-1974) and take a look at the results. All except the one you put up in your post of 20 Jan 04 - 12:37 PM refer correctly to Haj Amin al-Husseini's appointment as Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921.

One of the sites that comes up in the above search has a link that takes us further in depth into the career of Haj Amin al-Husseini.

The rise of Haj Amin

Mohammed Amin al-Husseini is said to have been born in 1893, or 1895, of an aristocratic family in Jerusalem. The Husseinis were one of the richest and most powerful of all the rivalling clans in the Ottoman province mutasarriflik Jerusalem, better known as the Judaean part of Palestine.

Haj Amin, only in his late twenties, became the youngest ever Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921. His election was due to family connections and possibly threats. The British supported Haj Amin to the post and granted him amnesty from a 10 year long sentence for encouraging murders. He had been one of the leaders of the 1920 Arab riots in Palestine and incited the masses to murder Jews and loot their homes. This first step later became a force of habit. He celebrated his succession by organising a Jewish pogrom in May 1921, followed by the annual anti-Balfour riots.

When the Mandate authorities founded the Supreme Muslim Council in December 1921, they wanted to provide for complete communal autonomy in religious matters. Every five years should the Muslims of Palestine elect a President, according to its charter. Haj Amin, however, was never elected. He simply seized the post and threatened every one who might want it. The President of the SMC was the most powerful person in Muslim Palestine. He controlled the Waqf funds worth annually tens of thousands of pounds, the orphan funds, worth annually about 50,000 pounds, besides controlling the Shariah courts, the Islamic religious court in Palestine. These courts, among other duties, appointed teachers and preachers, the most rigorous propaganda emissaries possible in Muslim societies.

In other words, the Mufti controlled the communal finances and it was in his power to appoint communal officials. In addition, he monitored a nation-wide net of propagandists, usually sponsored by his embezzled funds. Several times when the Mufti was pressed to publish accounts for the funds he refused and simply had the ones who asked killed or "strongly advised" to be still. However, when the Nashashibis complained about the Mufti's abuse of charity money the British authorities could take no action. Only the Shariah court could demand an account for religious property, and since the Mufti could manipulate the Court through the SMC, a compulsory demand never came.

The Waqf funds, which were supposed to be used for charity, were spent on the Mufti's pet programs. He used the funds to recruit armed gangs, hire propaganda activists, travel around the Muslim world to gather support and to purchase arms. The Mufti tried to eliminate the Jewish presence in Palestine at the expense of the poor, whose need for funds, as well as work at the Jewish farms, exceeded those who received them. In addition to all this, he received donations from abroad to build an Arab university in Jerusalem and to repair Palestine's mosques, especially the sanctuaries on the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount). By the means of taking control in Palestine he even collected taxes from the citrus exports, along with the general taxes that the Arab population paid. In total, he seems to have had access to 150-200,000 pounds annually to finance his terrorist campaign in Palestine and propaganda against the Jews.

Along with abusing and snatching the communal money he even fixed himself the very titles he used so frequently. He usually called himself the Eminence or the scholarly Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, although he just attended university for several months. The sheikh-president of his former university, Al-Azbar in Cairo, had the following to say about this matter:

In Islam, there are no "eminencies" and no "grand" muftis. Before Allah all men are equal. And it ill behoves a religious teacher to assume such redundant titles... A mufti is a teacher in Islam. And even to that title Haj Amin should have no claim, for he has not finished a single course of studies here at the University. He owes his appointment to political influence and family connections. He is a politician.
   

However, he managed to combine religion, in which he had no formal training, to politics, in which he was an expert, through terrorism. He extended his terror both against the Jews as well as other Arabs, the same philosophy as the modern Intifadah displays. His power among the Muslims of Palestine was unlimited, especially after he had murdered or frightened into exile the members of the National Defence Party, belonging to the rival Nashashibi clan, in 1936-8. His ambition was to become the leader or even the Sultan of Palestine and the spiritual leader of all the Muslim world.

John Marlowe is in no doubt that Haj Amin was the most prominent figure of inter-War Palestine, and said:

The dominant figure in Palestine during the Mandate years was neither an Englishman, nor a Jew, but an Arab — Haj Amin Muhammed Effendi al Husaini... Able, ambitious, ruthless, humourless, and incorruptible, he was of the authentic stuff of which dictators are made.

The greatest obstacle to his dream coming true, he believed, was the Jewish presence in Palestine. The Mufti's policy towards the Jews seems to have gone through two main stages: first, kill the Zionists, second, kill the Jews. When he was young he used to work with a native Jew, Abbady, and one of his remarks to him was documented:

Remember, Abbady, this was and will remain an Arab land. We do not mind you natives of the country, but those alien invaders, the Zionists, will be massacred to the last man. We want no progress, no prosperity. Nothing but the sword will decide the fate of this country.

The Mufti's hatred towards the Jews originated from those roots. He did neither want progress nor prosperity. He just wanted Palestine to continue being the same backward and poor country, as it had been since the Jewish departure in the first centuries CE. Besides his pan-Arab tendencies he saw the Jews as bearers of modern European way of life, which confronted to the most sacred concepts of Islam, at least according to his version. In an interview with one Ladislas Farago he said:
   
The Jews have changed the life of Palestine in such a way that it must inevitably lead to the destruction of our race. We are not accustomed to this haste and speed, and therefore we are continually being driven into the background.

At first, his policy was to fight or massacre the Zionists, which he most notably achieved in the riots of 1920 and 1929 and later the 1936-1939 rebellion. However, when he realised that the Jews kept on flocking into the country, he thought the best way to deal with the Jewish problem was to dry up the source in Europe.

Certainly sounds as though Yasser is a "Chip-off-the-old-block" when it comes to lining the pocket and depriving those who need it most. Like his Uncle, Yasser is not too keen on audited accounts. What's Yasser worth now Carol? - personal fortune of over $300 million - Bloody good work if you can get it.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jan 04 - 09:51 PM

Teribus, you only state things as facts. You don't provide any documentation. I have provided documentation. Why should I accept your statements of fact without documentation?

Martin Gibson, what use is it for me to even try to answer your question if you refuse to read my response?

But just in case you are reading this, in answer to your question; no, I probably would not ride a bus in Israel. If I, as a US citizen, ever found myself in that part of the world (if I was younger and healthier, so as not to be a burden on anyone), I would probably be in the Palestinian Occupied Territories trying to help alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians in any way I could.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 04 - 07:00 AM

Thanks for the link Carol, unfortunately the dates given do not tally for the events described in their account.

Al-Husseini was appointed as Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921, on the death of the previous incumbent. It was one year later, in 1922, that he was appointed to the Muslim High Council. Between 1921 and 1929 Al-Husseini did much to restore the main muslim shrines in Jerusalem, the records of this work, which involved dealings with other notaries in the Arab and muslim world refer to Al-Husseini as the Mufti of Jerusalem. The title Grand Mufti was one that Al-Husseini took upon himself, he was not appointed as such by the British.

Frank,

"I don't believe belicose threats should be ignored but taken in context with proper intelligence."

"But to act pre-emptively on such measely information is
the action of a "loose cannon"."

"The truth is if the assaults that were so loudly proclaimed from certain Arab quarters were in fact a real threat, there would be substantial military intelligence to back it up."

Between the 15th of May and the 5th of June, 1967. Egypt, Syria and Jordan parked 250,000 men under arms, 2000 tanks and 700 combat aircraft on Israel's borders. They did this in conjunction with their political leaders and press proclaiming in no uncertain terms that their intention was to wipe the State of Israel from the face of the earth. They did this in conjunction with closing an international water-way to Israeli shipping and vessels from other countries trading with Israel.

Under such circumstances what in your opinion, Frank, would constitute "proper intelligence"? I, certainly, would not regard such military dispositions, public announcements and political moves as representing anything that could be classified as "measely". Exactly what does constitute a "real threat" in your opinion Frank?   

"The USSR was not going to get involved in that regardless of
the rhetoric."

The response of the USSR to any US involvement in the situation, Frank, was very clearly stated, that is a matter of record within the UN.

"The ability to mount such an attack wasn't there."

The armed forces arrayed against Israel, at the time Frank, were massive in relation to the force that Israel could muster for her defence. What in your opinion would have constituted the "ability to mount" an attack? 500,000 men? 3500 tanks? 1500 combat aircraft? That's roughly what the USSR had stationed in Europe, Frank, and NATO kept on the alert, and fully aware of their presence, for a period of damn near fifty years. Those forces stayed in the garrison positions Frank, they were rightly regarded by the west as posing a threat just by being there. That's without the USSR making daily threats about eradicating, exterminating and annihilating any of the sovereign states of western Europe.

"It seems to me if there was going to be an assault on Israel, it would be quietly executed without verbal fanfare."

You mean like they did in 1973 Frank? By which time they'd learned their lesson from 1967. The fact that they screwed it up in 1967 in no way detracts from either their ability or their intent.

On both proposed partition settlements your assumption that somehow the British (then latterly the UN) got in the way is correct. It always is the burden of those trying to broker any sort of compromise between sides unwilling to compromise.

The British proposal was for two states the two Jewish parts linked by a controlled corridor, Jerusalem to be declared an international city, belonging to neither. Abullah accepted this and the kingdom of Jordan was established, the Palestinians did not, becasue no Jewish occupation of the land was acceptable, which I suppose Frank is a fairly relevant extenuating reason for rejection. Relevant from their point of view, but neither realistic or reasonable.

In answer to your question, "Which Arabs are we talking about Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians or whom?" We are talking about the Arabs of the region Frank, prior to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, there were no Syrians, Iraqis, Jordanians, Saudis, etc.

Subsequent to the 1973, Yom Kippur War, Israel held bi-lateral talks with its neighbours, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon came to agreement. Syria came tantalizingly close to agreement but still elludes the process. The agreements are fragile and difficult for those "Arab " countries involved because it is difficult for their populations to rationalise how their governments, who for the last forty years have been demonizing the Jews in Israel can suddenly make such agreements. I have yet to hear similar statements come out of Israel, they denounce the terrorists and accuse the foreign governments that give them assistance, but I have yet to hear any threat on the part of Israel to "wipe out" any of its neighbours, Ihave yet to hear any threat on the part of the Israeli government to wipe out the Palestinians.

In 1967, Israel's pre-emptive strike that removed the Egyptian airforce from the equation, far from risking WW III, went a long way to ensuring that the situation did not escalate into a wider and far more serious conflict. The fact that there was not one speaks for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 08:06 PM

It is much better when arguing, even with people you strongly disagree with, without shooting your mouth off.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 06:06 PM

Ebbie

Do you always speak for Don Firth? Maybe you have bigger balls than he does.

If you spent all your time reading some of the "long-winded" trash Carol C. put up on the subject, you have way to much time on your hands and rely on the wrong medium for your education and insightfulness, or lack of it.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:29 PM

Related thread about an Arab obsession

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:10 PM

"... it hasn't happened in Ireland and England yet, has it." For most people, yes it has. Even in the few years since the bombing campaigns stopped, in England the spasm of anti-Irishry that built up during Troubles has mostly dissipated. And there's never been much any real hostility towards the English in general in Ireland.

A generation of peace, and no squabbling over territory, and historical antagoinisms will just fade away.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 05:03 PM

"I still will not read your long winded spewing, ...)" Guest/Martin Gibson, I would imagine that a statement such as this is what would make a man like Don Firth say that.

"Someday this family squabble will be over, and they'll be scratching their heads in astonishment at how it could ever have got to be the way it is today. " McGrath, I hope you are right but it hasn't happened in Ireland and England yet, has it.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM

Frank,

Thanks for your rationale and thought out response. To a degree I admit that Bush is not the answer, but the sad part of it is, no one else on the horizon is either.

The other part of it is that I feel that the Moslem hate of all things Jewish is unfortunately not going to ever go away. The Moslem world in the middle east sorely lags in education (any famous universities in Syria?), civilized industry (name three well known products outside of oil that come out of any middle-eastern Arab country), and visible leaders who really speak out for peace.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in America. As I mentioned way earlier, the talk in the Jewish community is this is in part because of an anti-Israel position by the extreme left-wing.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:23 PM

Bigotry and intolerance and hostility to people because of their "race" or religion is a horrible thing wherever it occurs, and whoever it is directed against.

It's something Jews and Arabs have in common, being the target of that kind of thing. Just as they have a whole lot more in common - shared roots (including Father Anbraham), two versions of what is really the same religion, many of the same religio/cultural rules, such as circumcision and similar dietary restructions; and of course a special relationship with the same bit of land, which most of them have never seen.

Someday this family squabble will be over, and they'll be scratching their heads in astonishment at how it could ever have got to be the way it is today.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 22 Jan 04 - 04:02 PM

Martin Gibson, with all due respect to you sir, and I hear
your anger and acknowledge it, I think that there it's important
to weigh different points of view about Israel.

I believe, for example, as he has stated himself,Noam Chomsky is
not opposed to Zionism. Far from it. He advocates what it represented in the beginning.

I am not opposed to Israel in any way shape or
form and it's in this spirit that I feel compelled to disagree
with Sharon and Likud because I would feel terrible about Israel
destroying itself through beligerence and intolerence.

The important issue for me is that an Israeli expansion and
hegemony will only produce more suicide bombers. I applaud the
vitality and culture of the Sabra and have enjoyed Israeli music
by many of it's composers as well as my association with Israelis, themselves. It's in this spirit that I care very much
about Israel and it's people and don't want to see it become
a vehicle for repression and being taken over by "warlords".

I can't imagine anything except that the bulk of Israelis want
to live in peace with Palestinians and not be perpetually at war.
It doesn't serve Israeli leaders to be "hawkish" in a time
when nuclear proliferation is a fact of life and mankind has
developed a technical war machine capable of obliterating the
earth.

The way out of the dilemma is for both warring parties to accept
the responsibility for their actions. At the present time, I don't believe the US under Bush can be an honest broker.

I think that a model however impractical it seems at the present
is a vision for some time in the future. A single unified country
where diverse religions can practice in peace, free from animosity
and intolerance, where the rights of Jews are respected and the
Palestinian can be elevated from the status of second-class
citizenship.

One of the ways out of the box is to visualize (and I think
quite correctly) that Muslims differ in their practices as
much as Christians and Jews do in the United States. The
"Intafada" for example is different than the interpretation given to
the other "jihads" in other Muslim countries.

Hamas, as CarolC has pointed out is not the only faction of
Palestinian culture. Much of it is religion as applied politics
rather than the other way around. The heavenly reward is
due to saving the land rather than the religion per se.

I think we ought to step back and examine very closely the two
conflicting cultures so that all preconceived notions about who
is right or wrong is tempered by information.

For this reason, I believe the US government should have as part of the Executive Branch, a Department of Cultural Anthropology.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 06:08 PM

I am still pissed.

All of the long winded philosphers on this thread with all of their solutions. Do you really feel that you have accomplished anything?

Carol C., would you ride a bus in Israel? I've been to Israel. Pretty scary when you know some child could be strapped with explosives in the market you are in.

I value human life, more than you will ever know. I still will not read your long winded spewing, but I know you are reading this.......................

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 21 Jan 04 - 05:52 PM

don firth said:

It appears to me that Martin Gibson is a shining example of the mind-set that keeps people killing each other.

Sir, who the hell are you to make such a remark?

Please, fuck off. You don't know anything about me. YOU I am sure have never been the victim of any anti-semitism by either Arabs or Christians. Listen, I've been there.

You don filth, are a shining example of someone who is over-reactionary when he knows nothing of what he is talking about.

Carol C.: Jews will defend their homeland against the terrorists who have an agenda of hate. Your posts I assure you, are not what the greater Jewish community believes, as I am fully involved in that greater Jewish community.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM

What Americans think of Israel's West Bank wall.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 04:03 PM

Hi Teribus,

I don't believe belicose threats should be ignored but taken in context with proper intelligence. We heard the same rhetoric from
Saddam about the US and Noriega for that matter. It comes with the
territory. But to act pre-emptively on such measely information is
the action of a "loose cannon". The truth is if the assaults that
were so loudly proclaimed from certain Arab quarters were in fact a
real threat, there would be substantial military intelligence to back it up. The USSR was not going to get involved in that regardless of
the rhetoric. The ability to mount such an attack wasn't there. It seems to me if there was going to be an assault on Israel, it would be quietly executed without verbal fanfare. The rest is politics.


" What is expected is that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours declare that they recognise the state of Israel, that they will guarantee Israels territory and that they will live in peace with their neighbours - SAY IT AND ACTUALLY MEAN IT."

I believe that this could be accomplished if the Palestinians had
political parity with the Israelis. Israel will not allow this.

"Partition was offered during the British Mandate period 20% of Palestine to the Jews, 80% to the Arabs, 100% of the part of the Mandated territoty known as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not."

If this is the case, the assumption could be that somehow the British got in the way. Sort of like Bush attempted to "democratize" Iraq.
But why wasn't it accepted? This is a worthwhile
study. Could there have been extenuating reasons for it's rejection?
Which Arabs accepted it and which did not? Which Arabs are we talking about Syrians, Palestinians, Jordanians or whom?

The problem with demonizing enemies is that a true picture of their
goals is not truly realized. Rhetoric is cheap. Belicose language
has been used by every dictator or hegemonic power in history. I remember the language of WWII which wasn't so moderate as well.

So it must be concluded that Israeli expansionism is a fact of life.
It is their "manifest destiny". Is this in their best national interest? If so, how? Does anyone think that this will stop suicide bombers? It's simplistic reason to label, demonize and say that
the "other guy" is crazy.

As to the making of WWIII, the Mid-East is just the powder keg to do it. Pre-emptive strikes and expansionism can cause it.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 02:19 PM

While we're waiting, why don't we consider this statement by GUEST,Martin Gibson:

Whether it's the Bush group or anyone else who gets in, even Democrats, the US will always support Israel. The Jewish community is too well educated, too wealthy to not let that happen. We are only 2% of the population but there is a lot of clout. Please deal with this.

What are you saying here, Martin Gibson? Are you saying that US Jews control the political process in the US? Or that they control the politicians in the US? Whenever I've seen people suggest such a thing, I've noticed that they get accused of anti-Semitism for doing so. So which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:37 PM

According to this site (which is affiliated with the Jewish Internet Association):

Palestine Facts.org

...the title of Grand Mufti was created by Sir Herbert Samuel, who was serving as the British, Palestine High Commissioner at the time.

"The first Palestine High Commissioner. Sir Herbert Samuel arrived in Palestine on July 1, 1920. He was a weak administrator who was too ready to compromise and appease the extremist, nationalistic Arab minority led by Haj Amin al-Husseini. When the existing Arab Mufti of Jerusalem (religious leader) died in 1921, Samuels was influenced by anti-Zionist British officials on his staff. He pardoned al-Husseini and, in January 1922, appointed him as the new Mufti, and even invented a new title of Grand Mufti. He was simultaneously made President of a newly created Supreme Muslim Council. Al-Husseini thereby became the religious and political leader of the Arabs.

The appointment of the young al-Husseini as Mufti was a seminal event. Prior to his rise to power, there were active Arab factions supporting cooperative development of Palestine involving Arabs and Jews. But al-Husseini would have none of that; he was devoted to driving Jews out of Palestine, without compromise, even if it set back the Arabs 1000 years.

William Ziff, in his book "The Rape of Palestine," summarizes:

Implicated in the [1920] disturbances was a political adventurer named Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin, was sentenced by a British court to fifteen years hard labor. Conveniently allowed to escape by the police, he was a fugitive in Syria. Shortly after, the British then allowed him to return to Palestine where, despite the opposition of the muslim High Council who regarded him as a hoodlum, Haj Amin was appointed by the British High Commissioner as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for life. [P. 22]

Al-Husseini represented newly emerging proponents of militant, Palestinian Arab nationalism, a previously unknown concept. Once he was in power, he began a campaign of terror and intimidation against anyone opposed to his rule and policies. He killed Jews at every opportunity, but also eliminated Arabs who did not support his campaign of violence. Husseini was not willing to negotiate or make any kind of compromise for the sake of peace.

In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine . They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: "Itbakh al-Yahud!" — "Slaughter the Jews!" After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews.

In April, 1936 six prominent Arab leaders formed the Arab Higher Committee, with the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini as head of the organization, joining forces to protest British support of Zionist progress in Palestine. In the same month, riots broke out in Jaffa commencing a three-year period of violence and civil strife in Palestine that is known as the Arab Revolt . The Arab Higher Committee led the campaign of terrorism against Jewish and British targets.

Using the turmoil of the Arab Revolt as cover, al-Husseini consolidated his control over the Palestinian Arabs with a campaign of murder against Jews and non-compliant Arabs, the recruitment of armed militias, and the raising of funds from around the Muslim world using anti-Jewish propaganda. In 1937 the Grand Mufti expressed his solidarity with Germany, asking the Nazi Third Reich to oppose establishment of a Jewish state, stop Jewish immigration to Palestine, and provide arms to the Arab population. Following an assassination attempt on the British Inspector-General of the Palestine Police Force and the murder by Arab extremists of Jews and moderate Arabs, the Arab Higher Committee was declared illegal by the British. The Grand Mufti lost his office of President of the Supreme muslim Council, his membership on the Waqf committee, and was forced into exile in Syria in 1937. The British deported the Arab mayor of Jerusalem along with other members of the Arab Higher Committee."


Note that the majority of Arabs didn't want Haj Amin al-Husseini in any position of power (they considered him a hoodlum), that they didn't support him, that they were not in agreement with his agenda, and that he was as brutal to Arabs who opposed him as he was to Jews. So I think it's safe to say that we can blame the British for much of the bloodshed and violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis in the intervening decades.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM

Those of you who are using specific incidents to paint the whole of the Palestinian or Arab or Muslim people with a broad, broad brush are doing exactly the same thing as people who say all Jews are (name your poison) because of what some Jews are doing in Israel (or wherever). It's the same racism, the same bigotry.

Everything that is being used as a way of condemning all Palestinians on this thread (or all Arabs or all Muslims) can also be said about the people on the other side (the Israelis, the US, etc). I'll start gathering documentation shortly, and I'll post it when I have a chance.

Terribus, I'll be responding to your posts as time allows.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,all children are precious
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:24 AM

Guest, here is a story of two Palestinian babies who died at birth because of the actions of Israeli soldiers. There are guilty on both sides in any war.

Lost hope in Mid-East conflict;    By Chris Morris; BBC correspondent, Jerusalem; Monday, 19 January, 2004

The metal gate is open when we drive through the Israeli checkpoint into the green fields surrounding the Palestinian village of Deir Balut. But at night it's always closed and the main road into the village is blocked off by lumps of concrete.

'There's a woman in labour' the driver shouted. 'Wait' came the reply.
"Don't fall ill here between six in the evening and eight in the morning", says Raad Mustafa. "If you do, you'll die". And he should know.

Last month his heavily pregnant wife, Lamis, awoke with stomach pains and contractions in the early hours of the morning. The village doctor said they had to go to hospital quickly and an ambulance was called to take them to Ramallah.

But what about that gate? In the bitter cold, Raad and Lamis approached the checkpoint at the edge of the village. The husband carrying the wife in his arms. From the grey observation tower came the voice of a soldier - "Stop or I'll shoot, don't move". And so they waited.

"Five minutes, then 10", said Raad, then half an hour and more - just standing there in the freezing wind. The ambulance arrived at the other side the checkpoint but it too was ordered to keep its distance.
Most roads are blocked to Palestinians
"There's a woman in labour" the driver shouted. "Wait" came the reply.

More delay - another half-hour. After a while, a military jeep arrived with a key to the gate. But the ambulance wasn't allowed through.

So the driver crawled under the bars of the gate pushing a stretcher. Lamis's condition wasn't good. He covered her with a blanket and tried to get back to his vehicle. But the soldiers wanted to check papers first and they wanted to check under the blanket as well - more delay - another half-an-hour.

The first little girl, Latifa, was born at the checkpoint before the ambulance had a chance to move more than a few metres. The soldiers weren't happy, they wanted the vehicle out of the way. "She was fine to begin with but then she started to turn blue, it was so cold," says Raad of his daughter

He runs his fingers back though his hair and runs the images back through his mind. Raad wasn't allowed to go with the ambulance so he wasn't there when the second little girl, Moufida, was born a few minutes further down the road.

You can't blame soldiers for being jumpy at checkpoints
By the time they'd reach the hospital, Latifa was already dead and Moufida lived for just a few hours. They now lie together buried in the village graveyard.

Lost hope in Mid-East conflict;    By Chris Morris; BBC correspondent, Jerusalem

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:17 AM

Mufti, the title of a Muslim legal expert who is empowered to give rulings on religious law.

CarolC 19 Jan 04 - 10:40 AM

Haj Amin al-Husseini was appointed to his position of Grand Musfti of Jerusalem by the British, who, by the way, created the position of Grand Mufti just for him.

Correction Carol - He was appointed to his position of Mufti of Jerusalem. The title Grand Mufti does not, and did not, exist. Haj Amin al-Husseini adopted the title himself. By the bye, previous Muftis of Jerusalem:

Mohammed Tahir Husseini (1890s)
Sheikh As'ad Shuqeiri (1914-1918)
Haj Amin Al-Husseini (1921-1948)
Sheikh Hussam Al-din Jarallah (1948-1954)
Sheikh Sulaiman Ja'abari (1993-1994)
Sheikh Ikrem Sabri (1994-Present)

The office appears to be a reasonably a well established and honoured one, with absolutely damn all to do with the British. Haj Amin Al-Husseini asked for the post saying that he could take the heat out of the situation that had resulted in the anti-Jewish riots of 1920 and 1921 - Too bloody right he could - He, and He alone, was responsible for spreading the lies and false rumours that started those riots (Possible example of "Arab paranoia or belief in outrageous conspiracy theories").

As for:
"My guess is that the British wanted bloodshed between the two peoples in order to serve purposes of their own."

To quote MGOH - "That seems very much like a gratuitous smear to me."

If your insight into the problems of the middle-east are based on such guesses, it's about time someone told you that you are not much good at guessing.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 09:04 AM

A Palestinian mother, feigning a limp and requesting medical help, blew herself up Wednesday at the entrance to a security inspection center for Palestinian workers, killing four Israeli security personnel and wounding seven people.

The bomber, Reem al-Reyashi, 22, said in video released after her attack that "it was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists." Ms. Reyashi left behind a son aged 3, and a year-old daughter.

Imagine that, a mother who hates Israelis more than she loves her own babies. As long as there are Palestinians with that kind of mentality, it will be hard for even the most shalomic Israelis to make headway with their governmnet.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jan 04 - 07:02 AM

Some interesting points made:

artbrooks 19 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM

A good point that can be taken generally.

"Anything can be "proven" by quoting from various Internet sites....., the fact that different sites say different things equates to unvalidated opinion."

Bush bashers should take note of the above when presenting their "facts".

GUEST,Frank Hamilton 19 Jan 04 - 03:55 PM

Unfortunately Frank you are looking at this period (1967) through 2004 eyes and from a 2004 perspective, purely in order to make the comparison with Iraq.

Nasser never ever made any pretension at leading any sort of "monolithic moslem" organisation. What Nasser projected himself as was the leader of Pan-Arabism (quite different). In 1967, Nasser, and his allies (practically the entire Arab world), had the military equipment and the promise of more, if required, on demand. Are you seriously trying to say that those countries with their wealth, backed 100% by the Soviet Union, could just be ignored. At the time, no-one in the West thought that, and the Israeli's certainly could not afford to.

Frank take a look at the language that was being used, remember the date is 1967:

"..never recognize the Jewish State."

"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

"The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

"The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. "

"..the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

"Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel"

"The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

"We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

"Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now Frank, to any nation on earth, with the exception of Israel, the above threats could be shrugged of and dismissed as empty posturing. But for many Jews, within living memory in 1967, those threats had been heard before and the promise implicite in those threats had come alarmingly close to reality. You do not use words such as, "eradication", "extermination", "annihilation", to threaten Israel - because they mean more to Israelis, they unlike most nations on this earth, have actually experienced what those words mean when applied. Another thing that the Jews learned from the years 1939 to 1945 was that they must never ever put themselves in the position where their safety, security and well-being is entrusted to and reliant on the actions of others - No nation should. What the Arab nations backing Nasser knew full well was that the Soviet Union was 100% behind them, that was their counter to anything the USA and the West might have thought about doing. If this situation was not going to blow up into World War III, Israel and Israel alone, had to see off this threat.

No-one expects the Palestinians to convert to Judaism. What is expected is that the Palestinians and their Arab neighbours declare that they recognise the state of Israel, that they will guarantee Israels territory and that they will live in peace with their neighbours - SAY IT AND ACTUALLY MEAN IT.

Partition was offered during the British Mandate period 20% of Palestine to the Jews, 80% to the Arabs, 100% of the part of the Mandated territoty known as Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. The Jews accepted this, the Arabs did not.

The UN in 1948 offered a similar proposal, the Israeli's accepted it, the Arabs did not, they fought and lost. This resulted in a larger Israel, all of a sudden the territory offered by the UN became the Arabs source of grievance. Every single time the Arabs have been offered something it is rejected, they threaten and fight, they lose then they run back and attempt to revert to the status quo they turned down. They want to gamble only on the premise that the "house rules" state that they cannot lose what they have already been offered. That stand point in international relations is as ridiculous as it is unacceptable.

Given it's track record in conflict situations around the world, if you are waiting for the UN to act - don't hold your breath, and that track record was established long before Iraq.

CarolC 19 Jan 04 - 10:49 AM

It would be interesting to know when Weitzman and Begin expressed those opinions, and in what context they were given. Israel surrounded by enemies with her eastern trade and source of oil cut off, could only be described as a country under threat.

The Rabin quote centres entirely on Egypt and the Sinai, no mention is made of Rabin's assessment of the threat posed by the forces at Nasser's disposal in Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon. No commander in his right mind would launch an attack with a desert between his start off point and his main base of supply. The main Arab attack was to fall on Israel from the East and the North (The Arabs got much further employing the same plan in 1973).

On the point of, "The history of Israeli expansionism", the statement by Ben Gurion in 1936, relates to the partition offer proposed by the British which the Jews accepted. It has no bearing on the events of 1967, should anyone, as Noam Chomsky apparently does, want to bring this into the equation then a large number of other things must also be introduced and everything then viewed in context.

The quotation of Israel Shahak's is only a statement of HIS opinion it is not a fact and should not be presented as such, anyone is entitled to share his opinion but that again does not make it a fact.

The Livia Rokach reference to Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, regarding the words of Moshe Dayan from May 1955, undoubtedly reflect Dayan's thoughts with regard to the situation in 1955 and the lead up to 1956, not to what happened in 1967.

The fact that Israel rejected Senator Fulbright's proposals in 1970 should come as no surprise. In 1948 the USA recognised the State of Israel, as did the United Nations, the USA also guaranteed Israel's security at that time, a commitment it has stood by, neither has prevented Arab attacks either directly or by terrorist groups based in those Arab countries. The UN has had peacekeeping forces in the area in the past and they have proved to have been totally ineffective. That Fulbright's plan garnered favourable editorial support in the USA, is neither here nor there. Fulbright's plan had to win the support of the Arabs and the Israelis, it didn't, both rejected it. The plan completely ignored the realities of the situation at the time it was proposed.

"What happened after the 1967 war ended?"

No mention of the homes built for Palestinian refugees by the Israelis.

No mention of continued terrorist attacks launched from Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

No mention of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, launched by Egypt and Syria.

No mention of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Wonder why? Obviously didn't suit the case being made by Messers Lockman and Beinin.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:15 PM

I doubt the US would have acted to defend Israel in 67, as the Soviets made it clear they would get involved. (in the 73 war US forces were put on alert all over the world - defcon3 I think)

the original post was about - Arab paranoia or belief in outrageous conspiracy theories - and one aspect of that may be the helplessness
they feel - but one has to wonder about the state control of media
and the constant indoctrination of young children - into admiring
and thinking that the most beautiful thing they can do is to become a shaheed.

In a recent New Yorker article, a journalism professor from Texas who
spent some time teaching in Saudi Arabia constantly came across the
argument that 9/11 was actually caused by cia/mossad - and yet any stories remotely critical of the Saudi regime get zero coverage.

a fire at a girls school - a number of rescue & fire trucks responded but when they got there they werent allowed in by the religious police as the girls didnt have their heads covered, and since they were locked in they couldnt escape and all burned to death.

or the town of Jeddah which had a sewage problem received a budget of millions a number of years ago to build a waste disposal plant - but some official in charge just kept the money and built himself a fancy villa in San Francisco as well as as his own businesses in town and completely got away with it. Now they have to bring in trucks to dispose of the sewage and are dumping into some holding pond above the city (which is a time bomb since its on a geological fault)

or some Saudi businessman brings in a number of workers from India
takes their passports and forces them to work for him as slave labour.
and when they protest they get threatened with jail - as they have no rights in Saudi Arabia.

of course there are the well publicized cases of british and canadian workers - tortured in jail, and framed with liquor bootlegging.

the fact is - given the corrupt and authoritarian regimes they live in (such as Egypt, Saudi, and Syria) the conspiracy theories of US and Israel are a lot easier to take.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 03:55 PM

Teribus and CarolC, thanks for the insight historically into
the problems of 1967 and the "intafada".

The very thing that strikes me is that how similar the situation
is to Iraq. The Bush Administration feels that a pre-emptive
strike to expand influence is necessary. Any pretext to start
a war is fair game. The Axis of Evil is not an axis at all since
those countries on this list are not related.

Nasser's threats notwithstanding, I don't see a monolithic Muslim
threat to Israel taking place. (As I didn't feel that Saddam's threats had validity.) Syria has always been a problem
on Israel's borders but it seems that Nasser was pounding his
chest very much like Saddam Hussein without the military equipmentor
multinational consensus amoung the Muslim nations to substantiate
his threats. I see that CarolC's point about his bluster is
well-taken. Didn't require a pre-emptive strike on the part of Israel..

The last time a Muslim nation (Iraq) invaded a neighbor, the US came to it's aid in a Gulf War. Wouldn't Israel know that if they were
attacked, the US would respond accordingly? Even in 1967? I'm sure that the Muslim nations know that full well too.

As it stands now, if the Bush administration wants to search for
WMD's in other countries aside from the US, they could start
with Israel who is not part of a non-proliferation treaty. Is it really their ace in the hole? Their use of such could trigger
a world war. Would they want to be responsible for that?

I agree that no one cares about the fate of the Palestinians except the Palestinians. They are the hidden citizens. Does anyone
really expect them to convert to Judaism? The other Arab nations
would like them to go away as well.

In short, it takes two to tangle and any rationale for agressive behavior on the part of Israel, Palestinians or any Arab nation
is ridiculous in this time. The weapons get larger, the tactics more desperate and the "sides" become more entrenched. The UN has
a role, here and instead of diminishing it when it becomes politcally expedient to wage war, it should be bolstered and helped by
the US and Israel as well as any other nation in the world. It's the only hope to resolve this crisis.

The Bush Administration is using the Mid-East crisis as a political football rather than to really grapple with solutions that would
make it a credible intermediary. The "Road Map" is a political joke that shows about as much understanding of the situation than
what we know about Mars.

Nobody in this Administration has convincingly addressed the cultural problems in any of the Muslim nations with intelligence and
understanding. Instead, the Bush Administration is trying to
apply their values and agenda on foreign countries without consideration for their needs. How can you solve a problem like
that?

One thing that impresses me about politics in general. Words
are cheap. (Bullshit walks). This goes for all the candidates.
And all the blustering, rationales and righteous indignation
of the leaders of all beligerent countries today.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 11:34 AM

Hey, what's wrong with telling the truth about the association of the Bush's and Nazis? (Bobert)

That seems very much like a gratuitous smear to me. Even if Arafat was a nephew of the Grand Mufti, so what? "Blood will tell", or something like that? Anybody in your family you don't feel too proud of? (McGrath)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:49 AM

Looks like it's duelling quotations time, Teribus. Fron my link posted above:

The 1967 War and the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Moshe Dayan posthumously speaks out on the Golan Heights

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

The history of Israeli expansionism

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan; one does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today. But the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them." David Ben-Gurion, in 1936, quoted in Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Expansionism - continued

"The main danger which Israel, as a 'Jewish state', poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim...No zionist politician has ever repudiated Ben-Gurion's idea that Israeli policies must be based (within the limits of practical considerations) on the restoration of Biblical borders as the borders of the Jewish state." Israeli professor, Israel Shahak, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years."

Expansionism - continued

In Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharatt's personal diaries, there is an excerpt from May of 1955 in which he quotes Moshe Dayan as follows: "[Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no - it must - invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge...And above all - let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Quoted in Livia Rokach, "Israel's Sacred Terrorism."

But wasn't the occupation of Arab lands necessary to protect Israel's security?

"Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

"The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. 'The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,' writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. 'The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest.'" Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism." Fall 1997.[Ed.-This was one of many such proposals]

What happened after the 1967 war ended?

"In violation of international law, Israel has confiscated over 52 percent of the land in the West Bank and 30 percent of the Gaza Strip for military use or for settlement by Jewish civilians...From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial for various periods by Israeli security forces." Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising Against Israeli Occupation," ed. Lockman and Beinin.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:40 AM

Haj Amin al-Husseini was appointed to his position of Grand Musfti of Jerusalem by the British, who, by the way, created the position of Grand Mufti just for him. And they did so against the wishes of the Palestinian leadership and the majority of the Palestinians at that time.

My guess is that the British wanted bloodshed between the two peoples in order to serve purposes of their own.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:34 AM

That seems very much like a gratuitous smear to me. Even if Arafat was a nephew of the Grand Mufti, so what? "Blood will tell", or something like that? Anybody in your family you don't feel too proud of?

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM

Anything can be "proven" by quoting from various Internet sites. In the absence of a certified geneology, backed by certified birth certificates, the fact that different sites say different things equates to unvalidated opinion.