BS: A very Arab obsession

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM

Arafat has referred to him (Haj Amin al-Husseini) as "uncle". Yassir Arafat also took over Haj Amin al-Husseini's place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs.

Haj Amin al-Husseini was a close personal friend of Eichmann's and during the war was a ardent proponent of Hitler's "Final Solution". The Yugoslavian Government wanted to try Haj Amin al-Husseini for war crimes after the war but he could never brought to trial.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:45 AM

Haj Amin Al-Hussaini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem before and during WW2 and a supporter of Nazi Germany, is alleged to have been an uncle of Yasser Arafat. The Hussaini clan is very large, and has several divisions which are only vaguely related to each other (Saddam Hussain is also a clan member), and the relationship between clan members is far from what Westerners think of "family." Arafat may or may not be more closely related to the Grand Mufti than his clan ties...there are some claims that he invented the relationship to reinforce his aspirations to Palentinian leadership (he was born in Egypt) and other allegations that the relationship was invented by his enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:38 AM

Yes Kevin,

One - Haj Amin al-Husseini (1893-1974)

Appointed Mufti of Jerusalem by the British in 1921, Haj Amin al-Husseini was the most prominent Arab figure in Palestine during the Mandatory period. Al-Husseini was born in Jerusalem in 1893, and went on to serve in the Ottoman Army during World War I. Anti-British and anti-Jewish, the mufti was the key nationalist figure among Muslims in Palestine. Fearful that increased Jewish immigration to Palestine would damage Arab standing in the area, the mufti engineered the bloody riots against Jewish settlement in 1929 and 1936.

Al-Husseini's appointment as mufti was itself the subject of much controversy. The decision to grant al-Husseini the position was made by Herbert Samuel, the first high commissioner of Palestine. It was odd that Samuel, a British Jew, would appoint a man who would be responsible for so much unrest within the Mandatory area. Al-Husseini in fact had been sentenced to ten years in prison by the British for inciting riots in 1920. None of that sentence was served, as al-Husseini had fled to Transjordan, and was soon after amnestied by Samuel himself.

For his part, al-Husseini had used his influence to quiet additional disturbances in 1921. He assured Samuel that he would continue to maintain order, and it was with this understanding that the high commissioner granted him the position of mufti. In the following year, he was also appointed to lead the Supreme Muslim Council, expanding his already significant powers. Known later as the Grand Mufti, al-Husseini was able to establish himself as the preeminent Arab power in Palestine.

One of the mufti's most successful projects was the restoration of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque. With funds collected from India and various Arab states, the Dome was plated in gold. The impressive looks of the Dome greatly enhanced the status of Jerusalem in the eyes of Muslims throughout the world. Similarly, al-Husseini's own status as Mufti of Jerusalem increased his standing as an influential Arab leader.

The mufti was dismissed from his position following the riots of 1936. No longer able to stay in Palestine, he continued his extremist activities from abroad. During World War II, the mufti was involved in the mobilization of support for Germany among Muslims. In November 1941 the Mufti met with Hitler. Although he continued to be involved in politics, al-Husseini's influence gradually declined after the defeat of the Arab armies in 1948.

Yassir Arafat's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. Yassir was born in Egypt in 1929, not in Khan Younis refugee camp as some of his followers would like to think.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:27 AM

"Yassir Arafat's Uncle" ?

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jan 04 - 09:07 AM

Some facts about the run up to the "Six Day War" of 1967:

In an address to the UN General Assembly on the 10th October, 1960, Foreign Minister Golda Meir challenged Arab leaders to meet with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to negotiate a peace settlement.

Nasser answered on the 15th October, saying that Israel was trying to deceive world opinion, and reiterating that his country would never recognize the Jewish State.

Nasser, on 8th March, 1965 - "We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Nasser, again a few months later detailed the Arabs' aspiration: "...the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

From 1964 Syria used positions on the Golan Heights to shell Israeli farms and villages, Syria's attacks increased in number steadily in 1965 (35), 1966 (41) and 1967 (37 in the period January to April).

On the 7th April, the Israeli's retaliated, in aerial skirmishes the Syrian Air Force lost 6 aircraft.

On the 15th May, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border.

The following day, 16th May Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force, stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly, as he should have done, Secretary-General U Thant complied with Nasser's demand.

After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed (May 18, 1967):
"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence. "

On the same day, the Syrian army was brought up and prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

On the 20th May Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad came out with the following:

"Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united....I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

At this point Nasser made the biggest mistake he could have. On the 22nd May, 1967, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958. It also cut off Israel's only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran. It was the closure of the Strait of Tiran that provided Israel with the "casus belli" and Egypt was warned of the potential consequences.

On the 23rd May Nasser stated, "The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war."

On the 27th May Nasser again, "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,"

On the 28th May Nasser added, " We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

On the 30th May, Nasser then announced: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

All of this was not mere rhetoric, approximately 250,000 troops, 2000 tanks and 700 aircraft were deployed in advanced positions around Israel. Soviet Russia was, and had been for some time, supplying massive amounts of arms and supplies to the Arab nations, while Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Iraq were supplying troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

In the face of this the USA and France, Israel's main arms suppliers imposed an arms embargo on the region.

Faced with the situation it found itself in Israel and no choice but pre-emptive action. To wait for an Arab invasion would have put Israel at a catastrophic disadvantage. Hence the Israeli order given on the 5th June to attack Egypt. They were right.

The cause of Arab-Israeli conflict was based on the deliberate lies and fabrications of Yassir Arafat's Uncle. Arab nations and their political leaders for years used the Palestinian people and their cause as pawns, whilst playing the West against the East during the "Cold War". They have never offered those refugees one shred of comfort or hope. The Palestinian leadership in the form of Yassir Arafat is no leadership at all - but he personally has done quite well out of it financially.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM

I was dismayed to see that conscientious objection is illegal in Israel. On January 4, five Refusniks were sentenced to one year
in jail.

www.refuz.org

This is not democratic.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 03:42 PM

Nicely put, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 03:20 PM

I think that our respective views--that developed over time--are closely held. They have become part of who we are for one reason or another. Issues that touch the hearts of us often overshadow what we really think. I'm reminded of Alison Krauss's beautiful song wherein is the refrain, "What I really meant to say . . .". It is very easy in the fire of political debate to lose one's sense of proportion. (I personally have never done that, but I know some people do. Right!) I think too it becomes easy to forget the quality of people we are and the quality of people we wish to be. I find myself in the position of liking both Carol and Martin. And, I agree with both of them to greater or lesser extents. But this all ain't about us. It is about a deplorable situation in the mid-East that has real people involved in a real bad situation. I hope we can avoid starting that kind of confrontation here. I'm addressing that to myself, because I don't like the tone of a few things I said. I want to be better than that. And please excuse me if I have come across as a lecturer to anyone. Such was not my intent. Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM

CarolC, Thank you very much both for your remark and your graciousness. You are very kind. Bruce M.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM

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

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 09:17 PM

I don't know how I missed this before...

These people will not co-exist with Jews. They do not want Israel to exist, period. It's about HATE with Muslims. All your peace, love, dove solutions are really a pipe dream. Long live the anti-terror wall.

Martin Gibson, I think it's your hate that is blinding you to the truth. There are Jews living in the Palestinian Occupied Territories right now, not in settlements, but in Palestinian villages. Nobody is killing them. They are welcomed there. It helps that these Jews are living there as friends, and not a part of an occupying force or in segregated settlements under Israeli military control.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 08:58 PM

I just want to say, brucie, it's good to have you here in the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:38 PM

No, Carol, at the world in general. Sorry. As with the various 'sides' of this issue, it is an emotional one. I will count to ten next time. Please excuse me, all. BM

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 06:58 PM

Being sympathetic towards a minority trying to protect itself, and which seeks secession for a part of the country where they see themselves as belonging, and where most of them live is one thing, Wolfgang. And yes, there has to be regard paid for the terrible background happenings in the Holocaust which led up to the tragedy in the Holy Land.

But when this becomes extended to a claim that this has to necessitate the exclusion of most members of the existing population who do not belong to that minority, it's a different matter.

That applies whether it's happening in Israel, in South Africa, or in the countries that used to be Yugoslavia, or the Old South in America. Or anywhere else. In all those countries there was a history which provided reasons why crimes such as ethnic cleansing seemed justifiable to some decent people. But for outsiders to collude in this is not true friendship.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 06:18 PM

brucie, I don't know if your 16 Jan 04 - 05:51 PM post was directed at me or not, so I don't have a response for that one.

Wolfgang, I'm afraid I don't know what you're trying to say in much of your 16 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM post. But in response to your last paragraph, you might have a valid point except for one thing. The indegenous Jews who were living in that area before the Europeans showed up weren't all that happy about the arrival of the Europeans and the way they lorded it over the people who were already there either. The indigenous Jews were treated like second class citizens by the Europeans as well.

As I've said before, everyone was getting along pretty well in the region; Muslims, Jews, and Christians, until the Europeans showed up. I understand that there was a need for the Europeans to find a safe place and I also understand their desire for independence. Israel exists, and I don't think that should necessarily change.

But I do not agree with the idea that Israel is entitled to just take whatever land they want from whomever they want. I think they were out of line taking any land other than what was given to them by the partition agreement. Since they have already established much of their country within the pre '67 borders, I'm even able to see some sense in letting them keep the land they took beyond the partition line, and before the '67 line.

But I think they are way out of line in expecting to keep the land they took in '67 and also be able to live peacefully with their neighbors. That's just not going to happen. Until Israel ends the occupation and the settlment programs, there will continue to be bloodshed, and innocent people, both Jews as well as Arabs, are going to die.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM

Wolfgang, when those people came to live with you, were you and your family made to accept them into your home with a gun pointing at your heads? I didn't think so. (Carol)

Why a gun? Much more elegant: No spare room for fugitives, no food rations. Works as good as a gun and nearly as fast.

But my main point in telling that was that the question of evicted persons has been solved in Europe in a much more peaceful way. The Palestinians have been held as pawns in a power game by Arab states for too long. That is one of the sources of today's conflict that is too often overlooked.

A part of the population in one country, a minority with a subculture and a religion quite different from the majority wanted to form an independent state in part of that country. Usually liberals in these cases are with the minority and the right for self determination. Not when the minority are the Jews.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:51 PM

Israel has a right to exist--its existance is a fact since 1948. I am unabashedly pro-Israeli. That does not make me ipso facto anti-Palestinian. The invective of hatred towards Jews was orchestrated and it finds great comfort and use in the Arab world. The Israelis have not said they want to kill all Arabs. We have heard that claptrap from various Arab leaders. Does anyone really wonder why the Israelis have had enough? I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:48 PM

No, Martin Gibson. It's not me who is sick. You seem to only value Jewish life. You only talk about the harm being done to Israeli Jews. If you hadn't already told me that you aren't willing to read my links, I would post some of the things that some distinguished members of the Israeli military have to say about the kinds of attrocities they were ordered to committ against Palestinians.

I agree, Sandina, about what most Israelis want. But if they don't get rid of leaders like Sharon, they will never get it. I understand how difficult it is to get rid of unwanted leaders though, since I live in the US. But if the Jews in the US don't make it very, very clear to the elected officials here in the US that they want justice in the Middle East, Israel will probably never get rid of Likud.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:37 PM

If Sharon was elected, which he was, then he is.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Sandina
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:33 PM

The reason that there is no "Palestine" on Israeli maps (or for that matter, maps published everywhere but the Arab/Muslim countries) is that it does not yet exist as a state. When, not if, there is a Palestinian state that is not committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and annihilation of all Jews, then even Israeli maps and globes will show it (and I suspect that responsible Israelis will recognize a separate Palestinian state as the surest way to ensure their own nation's survival). I repeat, Israel does NOT seek the demise of all Arabs (inside or outside its borders)--that loose cannon Sharon and his Likud and Shas party cronies might, but they are NOT representative of their people!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:26 PM

Carole C.

No one is lying to me but you. Sorry, but you have no credibility on this, just someone who likes to promote their own type of agenda on a web forum.

I'll believe my rabbi and the other leaders of my faith, as we shake our head in disbelief and sorrow reading about pieces of Muslim/Palistinian body parts being used as as projectile missiles to be used in a cause that will mean eternal blessing from Allah.

Unfortunately, pure evil can only be so much tolerated. If you want to defend it for any cause, frankly you are sick.

McGrath, please don't bring Christians into the picture here. We have enough to worry about with the new Mel Gibson movie.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:13 PM

I can't get your link to work, brucie.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:09 PM

I'm sorry to have to break it to you Martin Gibson, but Israel has much, much bigger problems than me. And it ain't the Arabs or the Palestinians either. People have been lying to you for a long time. I know it's difficult to have to accomodate a new way of looking at something as cherished as Israel is for many people, but it has to be done if Israel is to survive at all.

I'm quite used to people resorting to ad hominem attacks on me when they feel their world view being threatened. This won't accomplish anything useful for anybody though.

Thanks brucie. I don't enjoy arguing with you, but that's because I don't enjoy arguing with anybody. But do I enjoy interacting with you here in this forum. Anyway, here you go... you'll have to read it in the link because it's too long to copy and paste:

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

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 05:05 PM

Well, I'm a bit early here. I have always appreciated Gwynne Dyer as a historian (or an historian). Here's a link. There are a range of views.

www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index-a.html

www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index-a.html

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 04:26 PM

CarolC: I will of course read it and then respond in kind. I like arguing with you because you are a peaceful person, and stuff never becomes personal. Thank you for that, and I'll return the research from this end after your post. BM

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:48 PM

"Christians hate Jews" is an oversimplification with a much longer history, and with an infinitely worse record of cruelty and killing.

Compared to that the dispute between Jews and Muslims is recent and smallscale. And it is a direct outcome of the persecution of Jews in a Christian continent, which resulted in a fratricidal conflict for land, in which the Arabs of Palestine have paid and are paying the price for what our fellow Europeans who were allegedly Christians did to our fellow Europeans who were identified as Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:33 PM

No Carol C.

Dangerous to the existence of Israel.

The very Arab obsession is hatred of all things Israel and Jewish.

Please find something else to go pound sand about.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:21 PM

I know that, Martin Gibson. They consider anyone with a conscience dangerous.

Brucie, you are wrong. And when I have time, I'll provide the documentation to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 02:45 PM

Muslims hate Jews.

Period.

It's the most obsessive hate there is and the biggest cancer in the world.

Go fix that, all you liberals here who have an answer to everything.

I was once a liberal, also. Now, like many others, I am a common sense moderate. Once liberal Jews are now getting off the liberal wagon in droves and we are taking our money and educated masses with us.. In a way, it's a shame, but you who support ANYONE who is so twisted that they resort to suicide genocide FOR ANY CAUSE are just spinning your wheels and as I said before, haven't got a clue.

These people will not co-exist with Jews. They do not want Israel to exist, period. It's about HATE with Muslims. All your peace, love, dove solutions are really a pipe dream. Long live the anti-terror wall.

McGrath, your philosophic comments and a dollar will buy you a cup of Starbucks coffee.

Carol C. Many would consider you dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM

No sir, they responded to massed armour. The Israelis came out on top. They took some land. If I had been them, I'd have done the same, and I would apologize to no one about it.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 02:18 PM

Strictly speaking, Israel did invade its neighbours. The war was started by attacks by Israel, on the grounds that these were justfied as a preemptive response to anticipated attacks by neighbouring states.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 02:03 PM

Screw God-given rights. Every one says that crap--whether they be Jew or Muslim. The countries 'friendly' to the Palestinians have more money than Carter had liver pills. They are part and parcel of the gang keeping the hatred going. They have done sweet FA to help. So, maybe we stop with the Allh wants this and that stuff. Political bastards want this and that. This is a human rights issue.

I am not in favour of pre-1967 boundaries. The Israelis did not invade their neighbours in '67 or '73. They were attacked! Tough shit for the losers. Don't mix two issues.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 01:36 PM

The key to any kind of reconciliation in any conflict is to learn to look at yourself through your opponent's eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM

So NH Dave, would you apply that same standard to Israelis blaming the Palestinians for the absence of peace in their country? Do you think they should also look at the ways that they (as voters) and their government have created the situation they are experiencing now? Or do you have prejudices in this regard yourself? It seems to me this statement sounds almost identical to what many people on the other side of the question are saying:

If you prevail it is with and as a result of God's Blessing, if you fail it is because the Arabs are intractible, not that you were on the wrong path.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: NH Dave
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 11:50 AM

The question that Wolfgang originally posed had to do with the paranoia and self-defeating religious bigotry of the Arab world.

A couple things we need to notice about paranoia and prejudice is that they excuse their believers from additional mental conflict and help give them comfort in an uncomfortable world.

We all have prejudices, from simple ones like one soap cleans better than another to less valuable ones placing one person or rce over another. These prejudices are formed to keep us from having to consider deeply which detergent we will purchase in the supermarket each time we shop, or sometimes to justify events which we chose not to examine too closely. If we believe that the US is the Great Satan, and Israel her helpmate, pawn, or running dog, it frees us from repetedly considering Aaron or Rachael as humans just like us, who only want a peaceful place to live and raise their children. It also helps justify great evils we heap on them in the name of justice.

Paranoia on the other hand gives us something tangible to blame for all our misfortunes, so we don't have to blame ourselves. If we believe that some great cabal joined together to remove us from our lands and property, then is is easy to believe that we were in no way responsible for the outcome of the conflict, and we can huddle in our misery believing that it was not our fault that we came to this position.

From these two points it is a short step to believing that continual warfare by the worst means possible is the best step towards restoring what has been lost, and that peaceful means have no possiility of success. Add to this wisps from holy books that seem to promise great privilege in the Hereafter for those of us who seek this path, and this path exulted by our holy men, and it isn't too hard to see why the Palestinians or the rest of the pan-Arabic world functions as it does towards Israel. If you prevail it is with and as a result of God's Blessing, if you fail it is because the Great Satan and his minions were simply too strong for you to succeed, not that you were on the wrong path.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: NH Dave
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 11:30 AM

One reason the USA sides with the Israelis is that they provide us with accurate inteligence that we have neither the knowledge nor skills to get for ourselves.

Following one of the recent Arab-Israeli wars where Israel overran large chunks of eastern Egypt, they swapped us a functioning SAM site for a couple of squadrons of F-4s, to replace the fighters lost during the conflict.

The acquisition of this SAM site allowed US companies to build electronic countermeasure, ECM, pods to protect our aircraft then engaged in Viet Nam. These pods saved much more than just the number of aircraft that we had given Israel, they also saved us the lives of the aircrew on these aircraft, something whose value can not be computed.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 10:48 AM

One more point, on the subject of Muslims... Muslims fought side by side with Jews against Christians during the Crusades. Until recently, they have been allies more often than enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 10:42 AM

Take a look at magazines, maps, globes, and even official textbooks in the Muslim states and the territory under the aegis of the Palestinian Authority: not only are Jews caricatured as in the most venomous anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi and pre-Nazi eras, there IS NO ISRAEL on the maps and globes.

The textbooks being used in Israel do not show any independent state of Palestine, either. They show the West Bank and Gaza as being a part of Israel. And I can post plenty of quotes of venemous, anti-Arab probaganda coming from prominent Israeli Rabbis.

I'm not in any major disagreement with much of your post, Sandina. When I say Occupied Territories myself, I am referring to the West Bank, Gaza, and in a sense, the Golan Heights (although that is a very different situation for the most part).

The way I look at it, ending the occupation and helping the Palestinians build their own state within the pre '67 borders would be a good solution for the most part. I understand the reasoning of the people who want a one-state solution, and I don't really disagree with it, but it looks to me like people aren't ready for that approach.

Wolfgang, when those people came to live with you, were you and your family made to accept them into your home with a gun pointing at your heads? I didn't think so. If a group of people came to your neighborhood with their holy book and told you that God meant for them to have your homes and at the point of a gun, they chased you off (killing many of your family members and friends in the process), I believe that all of the male residents of your neighborhood would do their best to try to stop them (at least until it becaume clear that they, along with all of the women and children would be massacred if they didn't leave).

This sort of thing did, in fact, happen to many Palestinian villiages in 1948. I think any reasonable person would understand the Palestinians' need to resist what was being done to them at that time. And that is my point, precisely.

Here in the US, we have a similar history to that of Israel with regard to the treatment of the indigenous people. We can't turn back the clock and undo what was done. But we can have understanding for the feelings of the descendents of the people who were here before the Europeans showed up, and we can and should treat them and their feelings with dignity and respect (and full equality). Unfortunately, my coutry doesn't have a very good track record in this respect, but I think we're learning and even improving in the way we handle this situation. And when we fall short of what is right, I make it a point to speak up about it when the opportunity arises.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 10:23 AM

Hi Martin,

You say,
"Frank, just because your grandparents were Jewish doesn't mean you have all of this insight into what is going on in the minds of the Israeli population."

Well Martin, I know a lot of Israelis personally and have talked at length to some of them. I think I know as much as many on this list as to what goes on in some of their minds.

"It's far from a question of oil in Israel. No matter who is in office Bush, or Clinton before him Israel will be supported by this country. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's a lot lesser."

The oily guy in the White House is pretty consistent.

The notions of good and evil are propaganda devices that really
bear little consequence on the solution to this horrendous
problem. What we need is a lot less judgements based on bias of "good and evil" and more objectivity. Theocracy is still the enemy of democracy.

Sandinia, I can see the fear of religious suppression on the part
of Jews in Israel. But I can conceive of a country that has pluralism in their religious beliefs as we do in the US. I don't think that Israel can't accomodate more than one religious belief
in that country as you say. The separate states doesn't address the issue of Palestinians who live in Israel and consider that their homeland.   They remain second-class citizens.

There is the element of over-reaction on the part of the radical right in Israel. Destroying the homes of innocent Palestinians as an "eye for an eye" approach to Palestinian violence does no credit to the Israeli government. It makes them just reactive and not
pro-active. I think you would agree with that, though from what you've said.

It's possible that if the UN could recognize Palestinian soveigntry
in their own country, if it were not an Israeli "bantustan", then that might work but would not solve the problems of the minority
who are not Jewish in Israel. There would still be conflict.
But if the Israeli government could separate the religious aspect
of their convictions from the pragmatic working of the state
which could work for Palestinians, Christians, as well as Jewish
people in Israel, then Jews could have their homeland and
the conflict could be removed. Shared authority would be required.

I fear that many Israelis or American Jews feel that
the Arab world is monolithic. Their interpretations of the Koran differ wildly. Some are more fundamentalist with notions of the Wahabi and Saddam and Ghadaffi with other ideas. I don't believe that all Muslims have been free to move about the world without reprisals.They have had their share of persecution as well. Nowadays, it seems to be coming from certain prejudices in the US. 700 "disappeared" in Guantanamo is a case in point.

I think Chomsky is right. shared authority in Israel.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 07:29 AM

Pedants corner. I was arguing a slightly different version of formal logic. I could have expressed it more clearly:

"If A is legitimate, that implies B is justified" is equivalent to saying "If B is not justified, that implies that A is not legitimate."

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 06:33 AM

A new post with a different, the original, theme: Obsession, not necessarily only in Arabs.
I have read an interview with a German (failed) suicide bomber. Steven Smyrek went to Israel in 1997 to blow himself up (acting for Hisbollah). He now sits in an Israeli prison and is among the 400 prisoners that might come free for 3 dead Israeli soldiers.

He says he is not antisemitic and does not hate Jews at all. But, says he, he wants to become a martyr for Hisbollah for then he comes into the paradise at once.

The mindset of religious fanatics will always be a puzzle for me. "The sooner the Germans learn that there is only one best religion the better for them," a recent anonymous leaflet said.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 06:07 AM

(Pedant's corner) McGrath, look up how "modus tollens" for the logical inclusion goes. Your reasoning is that from 'if A then B' follows 'If B, then not A'. Applying modus tollens in the above example comes up with the sentence 'If there was another choice (than ethnical cleansing), (then) the desire to establish a Jewish state here is not legitimate.' Doesn't make much sense on a content basis, but that's the correct logic. Please argue content (you're good at that, though I don't always agree) and not logic.

Now to content: Let me both answer Carol's last question (you once have asked me that directly, Carol) and put the problem of Palestinian refugees/evicted) in persective. I was too young then to be asked but neither my parents nor my great/grandmother were very glad when in a small house (today 2 people live in there) that already housed 4 generations with altogether 2 babies and 7 adults another family of 5 had to be given living room. Those people came from what nor is the western part of Poland and had been evicted. In 1950 (quite close in time to 1948), 8 Million Germans had been evicted from Poland, USSR and Chechoslovakia (allowed to take, in some parts, one suitcase of belongings per adult, in others up to one horse wagon for one family). Quite a big number in comparison with 700,000 Palestinians.

You may say, well, that was a consequence of the war (and worse crimes) for which the Germans have been responsible. I have a deep sympathy for that point of view. But for the millions of Polish people evicted from the Soviet Union (Poland gained land in the west and lost land in the east) that wouldn't hold. They were victims too in the war.

What happened with the millions of (not only German) refugees/forcefully exiled in Europe. Well, they are still living in camps at the borders near their former lands under the worst of conditions, have not been integrated among relations and compatriotes and from their camps make frequent attacks on the people now living where they once did live. They now number (counting everybody who had at least one evicted forefather/mother in direct line) 25 Millions in Germany alone and will, at the first possible opportunity regain all their former possessions. They are a constant threat to peace in Europe. Well, back from irony, the European example shows another way of dealing with such a situation. The willingness to integrate has done a lot for peace in Europe.

Jews have always lived in that area which is now Israel/Palestine (and in many Arab states as a minority). When the war and, more so, the holocaust, forced the Jews who were lucky enough not to fall into Nazi-German hands to flee their homes, many of them looked for a new home at a place were other Jews (and Arabs) were already living. Then the understandable wish came up (among Jews who always had lived there and those who had moved there recently, to have a state of their own. That's a secession and it has happened often in history. Look at the Tamil(s) right now or East Timor or the Kurds (soon) or Kosovo, or...

Usually, the pro secession part of the population is in the minority in the whole country. Often the whole country opposes the wish for secession (Great Britain, for instance). Eventually a secession is successful and then the secessionists get a smaller part of the former large country in which the minority is in the majority. Since the population before was mixed (though with the minority not evenly distributed) the border os the secession leaves at both sides many people who'd prefer to live at the other side. There are often clashes that lead to atrocities on both sides, to evictions and to fugitives.

The foundation of Israel was in my eyes a successful secession which has never been accepted as such up to now by all neighbours. After close to sixty years I'd wish for a bit more of accepting the realities by the Palestinians. Both sides have the understandable wish to live in a country made to their liking. What the Jews look for in a state where they want to wish is so far from what the Palestinians want that there is no peaceful altwernative but two states for a long time. Imagine for a moment a single big Palestinian state in which the quite soon to come Arab majority introduces the Sharia.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Sandina
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 03:21 AM

OK, I'd like to weigh in here. I'm a Jew on both sides of my family, and a liberal as well. Here's how I see it: both sides' views are fundamentally flawed. I think that the only viable solution is two states, with a shared (perhaps internationally and neutrally monitored) Jerusalem. It is a disgrace indeed that the non-Jewish occupants of what became Israel after 1948 are treated as third-class citizens by the government of Israel, but Ariel Sharon is NOT Israel. The militant Jewish settlers on the West Bank are NOT representative of the Israeli people and they certainly don't speak for the majority of Jews worldwide. But the Likud is terrified of the fanatical religious right (gee, I wonder whether another reactionary political party on this side of the pond is too?) and keeps sucking up to them in the Knesset to keep a shaky and spurious "coalition" going.
But sorry, folks, the State of Israel has a right to exist in some form in the Levant (I hate to use the term "Palestine" or "Palestinians," because they've become so fraught with connotations beyond any geographically correct description). The Jews were expelled centuries ago by the Romans, the early Christians, and the post-Mohammed Muslims alike---and no less unfairly than what happened to the Arab occupants of the area since 1948. Whereas Islam has spread freely throughout the world, Jews have been chased for millennia from country to country and persecuted and exterminated by the *millions* for no other reason than the insane and unjustified threat our ethnicity posed and poses to the majority peoples of our "host" countries. The Holocaust does not give Israel the right to oppress other peoples, but a majority of members of the United Nations felt it did justify the creation of a nation where Jews would be forever safe--in the land from which we were unjustifiedly expelled.
I think the most cogent and sensible viewpoint on this issue is expressed by the NY Times' Thomas Friedman: Israel has a right to exist in its Biblical homeland. Muslims and Arab Christians have a right to exist there too. But each group must have its own sovereignty. Israel is not going away, and it is insulting, simplistic and racist to insist that 1948 should never have happened and that we should all go back to Europe. But it is also insulting and paternalistic to treat the Arab population of the area as less than human. Israel must retreat to its pre-June-1967 borders--BUT it must be allowed to be safe and secure there. "The Occupied Territories" of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan must be returned and the Jewish settlements dismantled--this gives Israel a terrifyingly narrow buffer, but it beats having no state at all. And the notion that all of Israel is an "occupied territory" is equally ludicrous, insulting, and racist.
I don't know where you've been getting the idea that Israel wants to expel all but Jews from the land--I repeat that the right-wing loonies of the Likud and Shas parties do NOT speak for the majority of Israelis. But it is undeniable that even mainstream Islam and Islamic states have as a goal the dismantling of any Jewish state and not just the expulsion but the extermination of Jews from the Levant. Take a look at magazines, maps, globes, and even official textbooks in the Muslim states and the territory under the aegis of the Palestinian Authority: not only are Jews caricatured as in the most venomous anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi and pre-Nazi eras, there IS NO ISRAEL on the maps and globes.
I am heartsick that my fellow progressives are so eager to swallow the anti-Jewish hate propaganda spewed by militant Islam (perhaps because it has a better and more vocal and determined PR apparatus--for instance, that infamous killing of a child in his father's arms at the start of the Intifadeh was finally proven to have been accomplished by Palestinian, not Israeli bullets, but that fact received far less press than the original spin). Face it, David is a far more romantic and appealing figure than Goliath. But the underdog is not always automatically right just because he's the underdog,
Finally, let's not kid ourselves that the Bush Administration has any altruistic, pro-Jewish motives in supporting Israel. Fundamentalist Christian end-times theology (to which most of the Bush Administration's core of power and support subscribes) requires a Jewish-held Holy Land in order for the second coming of Christ at the End of Days--and thereafter, everyone who does not accept Jesus will be destroyed. Gee, that gives me the warm fuzzies.
It's so tempting to say, a pox on both (all three of?) their houses. But the only way out of this mess is to give each side the dignity of its own secure sovereign state, however unsatisfying to each. As an attorney, I know I've engineered a good settlement when each side feels equally screwed.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:56 AM

No one is blowing themselves up over it though, are they?

True enough. But they're blowing up a hell of a lot of other people over it instead.

And I'd be willing to bet that if a group of people showed up in your town with their holy book, saying that your neighborhood had been given to them by God, and they presented their holy book as proof, I'd be willing to bet money you wouldn't give it to them. In fact, I'd even wager that you would do your best to try to defend it from them.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jan 04 - 12:19 AM

No, you don't get it, Mr. Gibson. It's the policies of the Israeli government that is causing the deaths of so many innocent Israeli Jews. Maybe you don't give a shit about dead Palestinians. Maybe you believe that the only good Palestinian is a dead Palestinian. But for the sake of your brothers and sisters in Israel, you need to face up to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 11:59 PM

You really don't get it.

Carol C. You can print off all of the web site shit and propoganda all you want, much of it is quite unreadable and a total waste of time.

None of you appear to be part of the Jewish community like I am. Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east and though not perfect is the only true point of sanity.

There will never be separation of church and state as Israel was given to the Jews by God. It is the promised land, remember? No one is blowing themselves up over it though, are they?

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.

Frank, just because your grandparents were Jewish doesn't mean you have all of this insight into what is going on in the minds of the Israeli population. It's far from a question of oil in Israel. No matter who is in office Bush, or Clinton before him Israel will be supported by this country. It might be the lesser of two evils, but it's a lot lesser.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 09:19 PM

The idea that Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed to preserve a Jewish state dooms Israel as a democracy. This sounds like a theocracy. Once again, religion comes to the fore.

I am also disturbed by the attitude of the Sharon government toward suppressing Refusniks. In the US they would be legal as conscientious objectors.

My maternal and paternal grandparents on my mother's side were Jewish.
I am proud of their accomplishments and I could become a citizen of Israel because of this lineage. So you might say (although I'm not a religious Jew but have this heritage) that I don't join in the
view that Israel is being compromised by rapprochment with Palestinians. In fact, it's Israel's only hope and I really believe that deep down the Israeli people know that also. They have to find a way to live with their neighbors successfully or perish. Don't count on the Bush Administration to bail them out. Not that much oil in Israel.

Hamas is making a religious point. It's crazy but these suicide bombers come from committed acolytes of a distorted view of the
Koran. There are heavenly rewards.

Israel's militant theocracy must give way to something reasonable.
Separation of Church and State. I don't believe Judaism in this
way would be compromised at all.

Ironic that Shalom and Salaam mean the same thing.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM

The trouble with saying "But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice (than ethnic cleansing" is logically identical with its obverse, which would be: "If the Jewish state here could not be established without ethnic cleansing, the desire to establish it here could not be legitimate."

And a statement like "It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country" would seem to imply support for the minority Israeli view that Palestinians living in Israel today should be expelled to complete the process of ethnic cleansing."

In the long term that way of thinking threatens the future survival of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 07:19 PM

I saw an interview with Benny Morris some time not too long after the Isreli military incursions into the Occupied Territories in the spring of 2002. He said that his attitude on the subject of Palestinians and peace between Israel and the Palestinians had changed radically because of Arafat "walking away from" the best offer he could possibly have gotten from Ehud Barak.

A lot of Israelis, like Morris, who prior to that time had hope in the peace process, lost all hope and just gave up on any kind of peace process as a result of that lie, which they were told by President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak. I have documented that lie in this post. In my opinion, that lie is responsibe for the deaths of many, many innocent Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks
Date: 15 Jan 04 - 05:58 PM

Bennie Morris is a historian. Here is more of Professor Morris, from a January 9, 2004 interview:

"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic cleansing."

Q: And that was the situation in 1948?

"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on."

Q: The term `to cleanse' is terrible.

"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am immersed."

Q: What you are saying is hard to listen to and hard to digest. You sound hard-hearted.

"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view, the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."

Q: And morally speaking, you have no problem with that deed?

"That is correct.