BS: A very Arab obsession

13 Jan 04 - 02:26 PM (#1092036)
Subject: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

A very Arab obsession.

I thought it an interesting article from Al-Ahram written by a Palestinian woman living in England.
In a nutshell: Paranoia and wild imaginings can be comforting when faced with overwhelming state power and pure brute force....The question that must challenge the Arab world today is how to check this dangerous slide into paranoia and self-defeating religious bigotry.

Wolfgang

---

13 Jan 04 - 02:56 PM (#1092061)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peg

that's it! it's all in their imagination!

If this woman is living in England she hardly knows what it's like to be living in a war zone at the moment, does she?

---

13 Jan 04 - 02:59 PM (#1092064)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

That's a very interesting article, Wolfgang. I wish she had spent some time talking about what she sees as being possible solutions to the problems she mentions. I'm guessing that would have been interesting as well.

---

13 Jan 04 - 03:18 PM (#1092081)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

Carol, well, she can't talk about everything in a short article.
Her solution is a one-state solution in very short, a bit more in a review of one of her many books about the Palestine question.

Peg, sorry, my link must have lead to somewhere else on your computer. Funny things like that happen.

Wolfgang

---

13 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM (#1092100)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Ebbie

Interesting article. There sure aren't many answers anywhere, are there.

---

13 Jan 04 - 04:02 PM (#1092113)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks

Peg, since she starts her article with "On a trip to Jordan undertaken this month just as the illegal Israeli attack on Syria took place, and in the shadow of the succeeding savage Israeli assault on Gaza that killed and maimed scores of Palestinians, I found myself in a gathering of people in Amman concerned at these developments." it would seem that she is not entirely isolated in the safety of England.

---

13 Jan 04 - 04:41 PM (#1092143)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Thank you very much for that second link, Wolfgang.

---

13 Jan 04 - 04:50 PM (#1092149)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peg

She may not be isolated, but she no longer lives in the world she speaks of, either, so to speak of the situation as an analyst is very different from speaking of it as a resident.
.

---

13 Jan 04 - 04:54 PM (#1092154)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

I recommend reading the second link, Peg. Her view is certainly colored by her experiences in other places besides Palestine, but she gives a very compelling narrative nonetheless.

---

13 Jan 04 - 05:27 PM (#1092174)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Amos

The premise that all of Israel was stolen from the larger then-Palestine is not entirely correct. A lot of the territory was actually bought and paid for. The problem I have is not knowing exactly what occurred when in the territory. I don't know what was sold and what was stolen and by whom, when.

A

---

13 Jan 04 - 05:33 PM (#1092180)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

I don't know the whole story either.

I do know it is not Israelis who are blowing themselves up for money to kill innocent people in the name of a god.

I also know there is no one from Israel using a facsimile of the word "jihad"

I also know that Israel is a country that has educated citizens and has an economy that relies on commerce and industry.

---

13 Jan 04 - 05:46 PM (#1092190)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

It wasn't the Palestinians who were paid for it, generally, Amos. It was absentee landlords who were paid. Even though the displaced Palestinians had been living on and farming that land for centuries.

Martin Gibson, the Palestinians don't really fit that description for the most part either. Those kinds of glib platitudes really do have their source in a culture (our Western culture) that promotes racism (or prejudice, or bigotry, if you don't like the word racism in this instance) against Arabs, Muslims, and most especially, Palestinians.

---

13 Jan 04 - 05:52 PM (#1092195)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

BTW, Martin Gibson, the Palestinians, as a people, are one of the most highly educated groups of people in the world. And the people in the Palestinian Occupied Territories have an economy that is based on commerce and industry. The problem is that the aparthied system that Israel imposes upon them is crushing their industry, their business, their livelihood, and their economy. And none of it has anything to do with religion. There are Jewish Palestinians and Christian Palestinians as well as Muslim Palestinians.

---

13 Jan 04 - 05:56 PM (#1092202)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

Lord knows Martin Gibson and I have butted heads a few times. He has usually won because his head is much harder and thicker than mine. (That was meant to be funny, MG.) This time, I agree with him. The Palestinians have been pawns of the various states surrounding them. Israel has made peace overtures in the past. No resolution has ever been reached because it is not in the best interest of hate-mongers to allow peace to happen between Israelis and Palestinians. The Israelis are not the problem. Let's maybe look at countries that have more money than goodwill who cannot find enough cash to help Palestinians build. The Israelis certainly have the technological knowhow, and they would help. They know that the best way to get rid of an enemy is to turn him into a friend.

Bruce Murdoch

---

13 Jan 04 - 06:06 PM (#1092210)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Most Israelis want peace, brucie. But the government of Israel wants only land. And their end game (they have stated this themselves), is the removal of all Palestinians from Israel and the Occupied Territories. This is why there will never be peace in the region.

---

13 Jan 04 - 06:12 PM (#1092213)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,JTT

I wouldn't like it if someone came and said: "I'm going to take your house and garden, but I'll pay you for it." Would you? (and if not, what's your address, please?)

---

13 Jan 04 - 06:55 PM (#1092242)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

True, Carol, but neither have the governments ostensibly friendly to the "Palestinian State" been of any help. I do know that many Israelis feel as we do. Enough is enough. Please believe me when I say that it brings no honour to the world when people of whatever country die because of hatred. Allow me to extend your well-stated words just a bit: Good people of whatever language, religion and nationality want this to end, NOW!

I don't mean to sound patronizing when I say the following: You would be a good peacemaker. BM

---

13 Jan 04 - 08:12 PM (#1092308)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Good people of whatever language, religion and nationality want this to end, NOW!

I agree with this completely.

I will disagree with the rest of the first paragraph in this regard... it's not really hate that drives this situation. It's something much more cold-blooded than that. The way I see it, it's a very similar situation to what was done to the indigenous people of the Americas by the Europeans. The Europeans who were pulling the strings didn't really hate the First Nations people. They just wanted them gone (or at the very least, out of sight). But they used hate as a tool to accomplish their ends.

I don't mean to sound patronizing when I say the following: You would be a good peacemaker. BM

Thank you, brucie. That's very kind of you.

---

13 Jan 04 - 08:20 PM (#1092316)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

I think we have no hope of understanding the situation until we understand the love some people have of particular, exact, pieces of land...their own orange or olive grove that has been in the family for what seems to them forever. Other land won't do. Ultimately it must...those of us who are detached from our ancestral lands, as is anyone whose family immigrated to N.A., can't understand this. We can't understand our own native people and why centuries later they are still mourning the Wallowa hills or Okeefonokee swamps...but it is a real emotion that has to be acknowledged and respected, even if things have gone too far in another direction for it to be gratified....

mg

---

14 Jan 04 - 01:26 AM (#1092448)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: LadyJean

There are plenty of Americans on the left and the right who believe in conspiracies, that are just as absurd. Jim Quinn, who I remember as an A.M. disk jockey playing tunes like "Crimson and Clover", now packs a gun, wears camoflage, and talks about black helicopters on his radio show. Apparently it isn't a gimmick. He believes the stuff he says.

---

14 Jan 04 - 04:42 AM (#1092508)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

I don't agree with much in the second link I just wanted to show where she comes from.

I agree with much what she writes in the first link, as a general observation how people under some conditions can slip into a paranoidal mindset. I didn't like the title (maybe it was not her title, you never know that with newspapers) and I have hesitated a lot before making it the thread title. I think the word 'Arab' in the title makes it a bit looking like this was a predisposition particularly in these people and not something which could happen to others as well under similar circumstances. Perhaps a certain type of religion reinforces such a mindset, but I don't know.

When I recall for instance the posts by Dreaded Guest, I see signs of a similar mindset also in the Mudcat world.

Wolfgang

---

14 Jan 04 - 06:49 AM (#1092566)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

This Guardian article (In 1948, thousands of Palestinians fled their homes in what is now Israel, and became refugees. Both sides have blamed each other ever since. But new documents show neither is entirely innocent)

argues convincingly (for me) why a one-state solution would be disastrous despite its initial appeal.

Wolfgang

---

14 Jan 04 - 03:42 PM (#1092743)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

Well, Arab isn't a religion. Palestinian isn't a religion...and according to at least what used to be affirmative action programs in U.S., Arab wasn't even a recognized ethnicity, which I kept trying to point out to various academic officials.... mg

---

14 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM (#1092755)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

That's an interesting article in the Guardian today, the one Wolfgang linked to.

However there are some assumptions in it that shouldn't be swallowed without chewing. For example, see this quote towards the end:

(The return of Palestinian refugees) would lead to the conversion of the country into an Arab-majority state, from which the (remaining) Jews would steadily emigrate. Would Jews really wish to live as second-class citizens in an authoritarian Muslim-dominated, Arab-ruled state?...But this "right of return" needs to be weighed against the right to life and well-being of the five million Jews who currently live in Israel, about half of whom were born in the country, have known no other country and have no other homeland. Wouldn't the destruction or, at the least, the forced displacement of these 5 million - and this would be the necessary upshot of a mass Palestinian refugee return, whatever Arab spokesmen say...

In other words, the idea that there could ever be a democratic country country shared between Jews and Arabs is seen as absurd. And yet that is precisely what many founding Zionists were hoping for. If there had been no war in 1948, and no refugees, that is what would have been achieved.

---

14 Jan 04 - 06:10 PM (#1092848)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

I agree with McGrath that Zionism has not been frozen in stone from it's inception.

The only solution to the problem as I see it is a one-state country.
Today Palestinians are second-class citizens in a theocratic-based country. That there would be emnity in this between the two political forces is uncertain.

What some would claim as an obsession, others might see as an appeal to justice. The Hamas component makes it difficult for this stand-off to keep this from being a religious war. The "jihad" is an interpretation of the Koran applied by some militant Palestinians.

The history of Judaism under the Ottoman Empire is not one of second-class citizenship. This has to be reserved for the conquering Christians to later denegrate Judaism, placing their cathedrals over synagogues turned to rubble by invaders.

THere is a cognitive disonance on the part of a schizophrenic Israel
who reveres the noble notion of justice under Judaism and the subjugation of Palestinians in their land.

One state would be for the benefit of both sides.

Frank

---

14 Jan 04 - 07:14 PM (#1092909)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks

The "conquering Christians" BTW, were before the Ottoman Empire, if that refers to the unlamented Crusaders. The Ottomen Empire was not conquered until 1921.

---

14 Jan 04 - 11:58 PM (#1093062)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

This link is to a website for an organization called, Jewish Voice for Peace. There are many very good Jewish human rights and peace organizations and also very good Palestinian human rights and peace organizations, as well as joint Jewish/Israeli - Palestinian human rights and peace organizations.

I didn't start taking a good look at this one until yesterday, so I haven't used the information in their site very much, if at all, prior to now. I think it's definitely worth checking out. I'm thinking about possibly joining this organization myself, if they'll accept people who aren't Jewish. I'm guessing they probably will.

---

15 Jan 04 - 01:19 AM (#1093105)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,pdc

Upthread, someone said: "I also know that Israel is a country that has educated citizens and has an economy that relies on commerce and industry."

And on the US.

---

15 Jan 04 - 02:10 AM (#1093113)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

that is probably more of where the clash comes from than from religion...people who do commerce and industry are most likely to be unaware of the passion people feel for the exact land..although many probably are of farming heritage themselves...and probably do understand...farmers displacing farmers would probably have done things differently, or at least more apologetically, than those involved in commerce and industry...... mg

---

15 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM (#1093330)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

In the Guardian article, Benny Morris (whose historic research I very much appreciate) says this:

"Neither can one avoid the standard Zionist rebuttal: "No war - no Palestinian refugee problem", meaning that the problem wasn't created by the Zionists but by the Arabs themselves, and stemmed directly from their violent assault on Israel. Had the Palestinians and the Arab states refrained from launching a war to destroy the emergent Jewish state, there would have been no refugees and none would exist today."

This kind of editorializing isn't one of his strengths. The fact is that the Arab forces were fighting only over land granted to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Israel has always had a policy to never fight any battles on Israeli land. Israel wasn't defending itself against the Arabs in the 1948 war. Quite the reverse is true. The Arabs were defending themselves against the Israelis in the 1948 war:

Statehood and Expulsion 1948

What was the Arab reaction to the announcement of the creation of the state of Israel?

"The armies of the Arab states entered the war immediately after the State of Israel was founded in May. Fighting continued, almost all of it within the territory assigned to the Palestinian state...About 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled in the 1948 conflict."

"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan. But these regular armies were ill equipped and lacked any central command to coordinate their efforts...[Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and the British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements...Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off "the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified."

Benny Morris has changed his tone a bit on the Zionist leaders position on ehtnic cleansing. In some of his previous works he has this to say about it:

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Following the outbreak of 1936, no mainstream (Zionist) leader was able to conceive of future coexistence without a clear physical separation between the two peoples - achievable only by transfer and expulsion. Publicly they all continued to speak of coexistence and to attribute the violence to a small minority of zealots and agitators. But this was merely a public pose..Ben Gurion summed up: 'With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it,'" Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."

Ethnic cleansing - continued

"Ben-Gurion clearly wanted as few Arabs as possible to remain in the Jewish state. He hoped to see them flee. He said as much to his colleagues and aides in meetings in August, September and October [1948]. But no [general] expulsion policy was ever enunciated and Ben-Gurion always refrained from issuing clear or written expulsion orders; he preferred that his generals 'understand' what he wanted done. He wished to avoid going down in history as the 'great expeller' and he did not want the Israeli government to be implicated in a morally questionable policy...But while there was no 'expulsion policy', the July and October [1948] offensives were characterized by far more expulsions and, indeed, brutality towards Arab civilians than the first half of the war." Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949"

More on the subject of Zionist leaders and ethnic cleansing:

"Joseph Weitz was the director of the Jewish National Land Fund...On December 19, 1940, he wrote: 'It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...The Zionist enterprise so far...has been fine and good in its own time, and could do with 'land buying' - but this will not bring about the State of Israel; that must come all at once, in the manner of a Salvation (this is the secret of the Messianic idea); and there is no way besides transferring the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer them all; except maybe for Bethlehem, Nazareth and Old Jerusalem, we must not leave a single village, not a single tribe'...There were literally hundreds of such statements made by Zionists."

---

15 Jan 04 - 03:13 PM (#1093540)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Carol C.

---

15 Jan 04 - 03:21 PM (#1093547)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

Sorry about that, Carol C. I didn't mean to put you as a Guest, just typed your name in the wrong place.

Carol C.

It is you who sounds racist, perhaps anti -semetic. It's this kind of Israel bashing that scares the crap out of Jews everywhere because it is now coming from the left-wing.

Sorry, it is Palestinians I am talking about. Here is from today's Chicago Sun-Times. I am sick of PALESTINIANS blowing themselves up in the name of religion. It is sick. It is murder. It is FUCKING IGNORANT!

EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip -- A Palestinian blew herself up Wednesday at the Israel-Gaza border, killing three Israeli soldiers and a private security guard and signaling a new tactic by Hamas militants, who had never before dispatched a female suicide bomber.

Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin said the use of a woman was unique for the Islamic group, but holy war ''is an obligation of all Muslims, men and women.''

Israel said it would temporarily close the crossing to Palestinians, preventing thousands of workers from reaching an Israeli-Palestinian industrial zone that is one of the last vestiges of cooperation between the two peoples after more than three years of violence.

The army said four of the seven people wounded in the attack were Palestinians.

The bombing came as efforts to restart peace negotiations remained stalled, with Israel's leaders threatening to impose a new boundary between Israel and the Palestinians if no progress is made soon.

Violence over the last 39 months has killed 2,618 people on the Palestinian side and 909 on the Israeli side.

At the Erez crossing Wednesday morning, a woman identified as Reem Raiyshi, 22, told soldiers she would set off a metal detector because she had an implant to repair a broken leg. She was taken to a special room for a search, where she set off the bomb, said Maj. Sharon Feingold, a military spokeswoman.

''I heard soldiers screaming; the blast was very strong,'' said a Palestinian who identified herself only as Amena.

After the explosion, a makeshift checkpoint structure of corrugated metal had a large hole in the roof, and destroyed desks and computers were scattered nearby.

Two of the dead were immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

The bombing was claimed by Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a group linked to Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. Before the attack, Raiyshi made a video standing before two Hamas flags.

''This is an indication that resistance will continue,'' Yassin said.

Using a woman as a bomber was aimed at piercing Israeli security, which mainly focuses on men as possible attackers. Other militant groups have used women to carry out bombings, but Hamas had not done so.

''It is possible that the fact that today's attack was carried out by a woman could mean Hamas is having trouble using men to carry out attacks on Israeli targets,'' said Boaz Ganor, an Israeli counterterrorism expert.

Raiyshi had a daughter, Doha, 18 months, and a son, Obedia, 3. Her brother-in-law Yusef Awad said Raiyshi and her husband got in a fight with the rest of the family two months ago and had not been seen since.

---

15 Jan 04 - 03:32 PM (#1093549)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

has the U.S. ever offered to take a number of immigrants from Palestine in to ease the population pressure? I (perhaps mistakenly) believe that part of the problem is the refusal of Palestinians to immigrate..but I quite know I could be wrong on this..perhaps a new generation will. I know at least the older generation was skilled at orchardry etc. and suggested bringing some of them to Eastern Washington..home of many (economically struggling sometimes) orchards...and the woman I was riding with said.."would we want them here?" I guess she saw terrorists and I saw farmers... They would of course have to be screened...very carefully... mg

---

15 Jan 04 - 03:44 PM (#1093560)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: TIA

Heard a twentysomething Iraqi in the new Civil Defense Force interviewed on NPR yesterday about the recent (latest) suicide bombing of an Iraqi police station. Not sure I heard correctly, but he seemed to be saying that many Iraqis believe that the U.S. is behind the bombings because they are trying to foment discord between the Shiites and Sunnis, but at the same time, the bombing was justified because it was consistent with bin Laden's call to attack Americans and any who assist them. My God what a muddled viewpoint. I'm looking for a transcript in hopes that I misunderstood. I'm NOT saying that Arabs are muddled, but it makes me wonder how many others think like this, and if they do, what hope is there for peace in the middle east?

---

15 Jan 04 - 03:51 PM (#1093564)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

there is always hope up until the last minute. For one thing, look at how much less influence the Catholic religion has on people these days..including me...and that has happened in my generation....we used to be quite similar in terms of expected behavior etc.   And we were trained to be martyrs..no lie...not in an active way..but passively..victims, not victees. mg

---

15 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM (#1093589)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

It is possible to argue that the flight of the refugees from Israel, and from the Palestinian territories which were at that time annexed to Israel, was not the result of a pre-determined ethnic cleansing plan, but the kind of things that happens in wars. And of course it possible to argue the reverse. It's a complicated matter.

However what is not open to argument is that the State of Israel refused to allow refugees to return home after the war was ended. It was that decision that institutionalised the refugee problem, and is at the root of the continuing tragedy. It was an act of retrospective ethnic cleansing, and continues to be so to this day.

And of course there is another side to all this, and of course the way in which Palestinians have adopted the nightmare tactics of suicide atrocities is a kind of madness, and a terrible evil. And nothing can change until they recognise that. But nothing can change either without the recognition by Israel and by the friends of Israel that a terrible and continuing crime has been committed against the people of the Holy Land.

---

15 Jan 04 - 05:03 PM (#1093601)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Martin Gibson, if I'm an anti-Semite, then I'm in very good company, because there are a hell of a lot of Jews who are saying exactly the same things I'm saying. In fact, I get most of my information from Jewish human rights organizations. If you look into the link I provided about the 1949 war, you'll see that it is a Jewish website. Are these Jews anti-Semites?

Here's what they have to say on the subject:

Any criticism of Israel is traditionally seen by American Jews as harmful to the Jewish people, even if the criticism is true. But "my people, right or wrong, my people" is no different than "my country, right or wrong, my country". Once we start down the slippery slope where the ends justify the means we have left behind any claim to morality. Along with millions of other American Jews unaffiliated with the major U.S. Jewish organizations, we are outraged at the Israeli government's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians and feel that it has been the ruination of the high moral standing of the Jewish people.

CONCLUSION I For Jewish Readers

Calling everyone who criticizes the government of Israel an anti-Semite makes exactly the same amount of sense as calling everyone who criticizes the government of the US anti-American. And I make a point of criticizing the US government whenever I think it is in the wrong. Since the US government and the government of Israel are making me complicit in their crimes against humanity by using my tax dollars for these things, I have a responsibility as a human being to speak up about it. And so do you.

Here's what the the Jews who belong to Jewish Voice for Peace have to say about using the charge of anti-Semitism in the way you have:

Jews have a special role to play in bringing about a change in American and Israeli policy. Israel claims to be acting in the name of the Jewish people, and it is up to us to make sure the world knows that many of us are opposed to their actions. More importantly, as long as even legitimate criticism of Israel is blocked by accusations of anti-Semitism, it is the responsibility of Jews to stand up for universal justice. Because we are Jews, we have a particular legitimacy in voicing an alternative view of American and Israeli actions and policies. As Jews, we can make the distinction between real anti-Semitism and the cynical manipulation of that issue to shield Israel from legitimate criticism.

Jewish Voice for Peace

---

15 Jan 04 - 05:06 PM (#1093603)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Pardon me: If you look into the link I provided about the 1948 war...

---

15 Jan 04 - 05:15 PM (#1093605)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks

Another factor to be considered is the thousands of Jewish citizens expelled from the Arab states after the 1948 war...yet another example of "ethnic cleansing."

The unfortunate fact is that attempting to solve the Israeli/Palestinian issues based upon history, whether that history is based upon fact or folklore, has about as much chance of success as does doing the same in the Balkans. All of the sides involved, and there are many more than two, need to be willing to negotiate from today rather than from 70, 638, 1492, 1897, 1917, 1948 or 1967. Unfortunately, none of them are.

---

15 Jan 04 - 05:16 PM (#1093606)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

...and lastly - BTW, Benny Morris is an Israeli Jew.

---

15 Jan 04 - 05:35 PM (#1093624)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

What the hell. This part is worth posting in its entirety:

CONCLUSION I
For Jewish Readers

As we have seen, the root cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict is clear. During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees. The state of Israel then refused to allow them to return and either destroyed their villages entirely or expropriated their land, orchards, houses, businesses and personal possessions for the use of the Jewish population. This was the birth of the state of Israel.

We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish people are in the wrong.We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. If you run into someone's car, for whatever reason, simple justice demands that you repair it. Our moral obligation to the Palestinian people is no less clear. It is time for all Jewish people of good conscience to make whatever amends are possible to the Palestinians in order to live up to the best part of the Jewish tradition - its ethical and moral basis.

Any criticism of Israel is traditionally seen by American Jews as harmful to the Jewish people, even if the criticism is true. But "my people, right or wrong, my people" is no different than "my country, right or wrong, my country". Once we start down the slippery slope where the ends justify the means we have left behind any claim to morality. Along with millions of other American Jews unaffiliated with the major U.S. Jewish organizations, we are outraged at the Israeli government's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians and feel that it has been the ruination of the high moral standing of the Jewish people.

The Israeli government could solve the Palestine/Israel crisis tomorrow. It actually would be in the best interests of its citizens to do so because random acts of terrorism against Israelis would cease if Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state were accepted and compensation for Arab losses made.

Here in America, we Jews are thoroughly assimilated into the mainstream of society and hold positions of power and influence in every field of endeavor. We do not need to be in a defensive mood anymore. We can afford to change out attitude from "is it good the the Jews?" to "Is it good?" At the very least, American Jews need to categorically state that we cannot condone Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the intentional murder and crippling of Palestinian protestors armed only with rocks, as documented in reports by the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli groups like B'Tselem, etc.

According to a survey commissioned by the five largest American Jewish organizations, but suppressed by them afterwards, 20% of American Jews support Palestinian demands and 35% say that Jerusalem should be shared. This, in the face of a near-total blackout of the Palestinian position in our press, is very impressive. Join this growing segment of American Jews by contacting Not In My Name, at www.nimn.org, a group that is spearheading a coalition of Jewish groups to protest the Israeli occupation.

Israel's long-term interests can best be served by supporting Israeli peace groups, like Gush Shalom (www.gush.shalom.org), not the Israeli government and its brutal repression, which just leads to endless violence. Israeli peace groups rightfully criticize their government and we should too, since they claim to act in our name. American groups like the Jewish Peace Lobby, Jewish Voice For Peace and the Middle East Children's Alliance also deserve your support. Don't compromise yout ethics in blind support of bad politics--work for a just soultion instead.

Please write for more free copies of this booklet to the address on the back page and ask your Jewish friends to consider the information presented here. For everyone's sake. Peace.

---

15 Jan 04 - 07:19 PM (#1093698)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

15 Jan 04 - 07:40 PM (#1093711)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

15 Jan 04 - 09:19 PM (#1093772)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

15 Jan 04 - 11:59 PM (#1093845)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 12:19 AM (#1093854)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 12:56 AM (#1093867)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 03:21 AM (#1093901)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Sandina

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 06:07 AM (#1093971)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

(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

---

16 Jan 04 - 06:33 AM (#1093988)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 07:29 AM (#1094015)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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."

---

16 Jan 04 - 10:23 AM (#1094143)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 10:42 AM (#1094159)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 10:48 AM (#1094162)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 11:30 AM (#1094208)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: NH Dave

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 11:50 AM (#1094225)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: NH Dave

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 12:01 PM (#1094229)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 01:36 PM (#1094291)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 02:03 PM (#1094319)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 02:18 PM (#1094334)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 02:36 PM (#1094353)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 02:45 PM (#1094363)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 03:21 PM (#1094382)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 03:33 PM (#1094389)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 03:48 PM (#1094396)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

"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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 04:26 PM (#1094411)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:05 PM (#1094427)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:09 PM (#1094431)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:13 PM (#1094433)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:26 PM (#1094447)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:33 PM (#1094451)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Sandina

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!!!!

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:37 PM (#1094457)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:48 PM (#1094464)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:51 PM (#1094469)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 05:53 PM (#1094470)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 06:18 PM (#1094495)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 06:58 PM (#1094524)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

16 Jan 04 - 07:38 PM (#1094548)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 08:58 PM (#1094593)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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

---

16 Jan 04 - 09:17 PM (#1094597)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

17 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM (#1094979)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Don Firth

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

Don Firth

---

17 Jan 04 - 02:54 PM (#1094980)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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

---

17 Jan 04 - 03:20 PM (#1094997)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Peace

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

---

17 Jan 04 - 03:42 PM (#1095014)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

Nicely put, Bruce.

---

17 Jan 04 - 04:05 PM (#1095024)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

19 Jan 04 - 09:07 AM (#1096190)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 09:27 AM (#1096206)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

"Yassir Arafat's Uncle" ?

---

19 Jan 04 - 09:38 AM (#1096215)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 09:45 AM (#1096223)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:21 AM (#1096249)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:33 AM (#1096263)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: artbrooks

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:34 AM (#1096265)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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?

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:40 AM (#1096271)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:49 AM (#1096279)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

19 Jan 04 - 11:34 AM (#1096317)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

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

---

19 Jan 04 - 03:55 PM (#1096492)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

19 Jan 04 - 10:15 PM (#1096757)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,petr

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 07:02 AM (#1096934)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 09:04 AM (#1097011)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 09:17 AM (#1097029)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 09:24 AM (#1097039)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,all children are precious

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

---

20 Jan 04 - 12:13 PM (#1097205)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 12:37 PM (#1097223)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

20 Jan 04 - 02:19 PM (#1097306)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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?

---

20 Jan 04 - 04:03 PM (#1097406)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

20 Jan 04 - 06:14 PM (#1097508)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

What Americans think of Israel's West Bank wall.

---

21 Jan 04 - 05:52 PM (#1098229)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin gibson

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.

---

21 Jan 04 - 06:08 PM (#1098240)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.......................

---

22 Jan 04 - 04:02 PM (#1098979)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

22 Jan 04 - 04:23 PM (#1098995)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

22 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM (#1099012)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

22 Jan 04 - 05:03 PM (#1099039)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Ebbie

"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.

---

22 Jan 04 - 05:10 PM (#1099046)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

"... 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.

---

22 Jan 04 - 05:29 PM (#1099065)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

Related thread about an Arab obsession

---

22 Jan 04 - 06:06 PM (#1099121)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

22 Jan 04 - 08:06 PM (#1099205)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

---

23 Jan 04 - 07:00 AM (#1099545)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

25 Jan 04 - 09:51 PM (#1101335)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 10:53 AM (#1101745)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 11:20 AM (#1101766)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 11:46 AM (#1101787)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Wolfgang

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

---

26 Jan 04 - 01:10 PM (#1101851)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

26 Jan 04 - 02:29 PM (#1101900)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton

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

---

26 Jan 04 - 02:37 PM (#1101904)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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).

---

26 Jan 04 - 02:52 PM (#1101913)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 04:14 PM (#1101962)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 04:38 PM (#1101984)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 04:51 PM (#1101992)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

McGrath

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

---

26 Jan 04 - 06:20 PM (#1102035)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 07:43 PM (#1102095)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 08:33 PM (#1102129)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 08:56 PM (#1102147)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 09:14 PM (#1102153)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: mg

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

---

26 Jan 04 - 09:25 PM (#1102160)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

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.

---

26 Jan 04 - 11:38 PM (#1102217)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---

27 Jan 04 - 05:49 AM (#1102362)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST

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."

---

27 Jan 04 - 02:04 PM (#1102715)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: Teribus

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.

---

27 Jan 04 - 03:17 PM (#1102761)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson

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.

---

27 Jan 04 - 07:31 PM (#1102964)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

27 Jan 04 - 10:06 PM (#1103078)
Subject: RE: BS: A very Arab obsession
From: CarolC

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.

---