Why do leftist support "palestinians"?

[Tony]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20020626.shtml

Why does the left support the Palestinians against Israel?

The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.

But the question does need to be asked. For it is completely inconsistent with the left's professed values to side with Israel's enemies. Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not.

The left speaks about its passion for democracy ("power to the people"). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat is precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt.

[DrBenway]

An answer to your question, by way of a parallel:

In Iran the communists worked together with the Islamists to overthrow the Shah. The more educated communist faction of the revolution felt it could guide and control the less educated fundamentalists. Unfortunately for them, they failed to appreciate the fervent loyalty that religionists can feel toward a spiritual guide. Shortly after the Shah was removed, the Ayatollah Khomeini usurped their initiative, and the communists were purged.

The far left has a tradition of alligning with disgruntled working class peoples wherever it finds them. Angry people provide an opportunity for revolution. But clearly, the Islamists don't want the communists in charge, nor do the communists have much interest in theocratic systems. A marriage of convenience doomed for divorce, if ever the revolution gets off the ground.

The current Islamic crisis has really soured me on the left. I want to scream, "Emperor, no clothes, ya morons!" when I hear the left apologize for Islam. Willful blindness.

Yet the right in this country, snuggling up to Pat Roberson et al, just turns my stomach.

*sigh*

[iMoc]

Prager is a contemptable fool not worthy of any notice. His only talent is sifting through current affairs and then twisting and spinning any situation he can in an attempt to make anyone anti-nazi look bad.

He is blatanly anti-european without knowing much about Europe, and is blindly patriotic to the point of fanaticism.

He continues the parrot like repetiton in the media that all evil comes from Palestine and the poor blameless Isreali's are in endless suffering because of it.

Prager is a Limbaugh wanna be, but can't hold down a job long enough.

Forget him.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Yet the right in this country, snuggling up to Pat Roberson et al, just turns my stomach.



I agree Dr. B. But not everyone on the right likes him.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iMoc
Prager is a contemptable fool not worthy of any notice. His only talent is sifting through current affairs and then twisting and spinning any situation he can in an attempt to make anyone anti-nazi look bad.

He is blatanly anti-european without knowing much about Europe, and is blindly patriotic to the point of fanaticism.

He continues the parrot like repetiton in the media that all evil comes from Palestine and the poor blameless Isreali's are in endless suffering because of it.

Prager is a Limbaugh wanna be, but can't hold down a job long enough.

Forget him.


I dont know much about the guy, but why dont you refute his argument instead of attacking him personally?

[iMoc]

I dont know much about the guy, but why dont you refute his argument instead of attacking him personally?

That's a reasonable statement. Look, I've been aware fo this creep for a long time, mostly through his radio and TV appearances in LA.

As far as the point of his article goes, yes it is true that anyone can pick up inconsistencies in a pro-palestinian movement, if they have a liberal/ leftist leaning in their makeup. But really, no cause is pure. An essay on hypocrasy can be written on any group who are embarked on a supposedly worthy cause.

In some cases the wider issue is taken in hand in order to protect the welfare of a greater number of people, despite the faults that lurk below. You sometimes have to turn of the water before you fix the leak.

[Cleopatra]

Well, I will risk to be accused of racism-again.

I have been observing and experiencing this problem( the palestianian) for years now and I think that the answer to this interesting question is... psychological...

European leftists suffer ( in my opinion ) by a complex of inferiority.

They usually think that society owes something to them and the "privileges" the conservatives enjoy, have been stolen from them. That's why all the european terrorists groups belonged to the Left( "Bander-Meinhof"in Germany, "17 November"in Greece " Red Brigades"in Italy).
They were vaguely against "wealth" " power" " Capital" " americans" etc etc etc

Sorry, by this is what I think.

In Europe most of people that belong to the Left, hate americans.

So, they are anti-israeli mostly because they are anti-americans.

They believe that Israel is a "product" of American Imperialism ( sic), plus that they can't accept the fact, due to their inferiority complex, that Israelis arrived to make to dominate the whole area and they don't hesitate to sacrifice themselves for their country.

Don't underestimate the fact that parties that belong to the left, usually derive their power by flattering the lowest ego of their supporters. Leftists usually are against vague ideas, without providing with alternative solutions.

Look at the Palestinian issue. Which suggestion have you ever heard by a leftist? Nothing!

Only vague wishes for peace and tones of accusations.

[gnome]

I would just like to add that one shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that all on the left have the same opinion regarding Israel and Palestine.

Generally, my support goes to Israel. They have been a consistent US ally and are definitely in a struggle just to survive. I am completely against the bunch currently most influential in Palestine, they have brought little to the world but terror and false promises.

That said, I often criticize Israel if I feel they are going too far. Their predicament does not mean they can do no wrong.

If I don't often harp on the Palestinians, it is because I feel their leaders' terrorism is well known and non-controversial. How often do I have to say it, in order to discuss the problem?

Why, in the thread title, is the word palestinians in quotes?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
Why, in the thread title, is the word palestinians in quotes?

because "palestinians" are a modern invention. Before the 6 day war they were Jordanians. I call them "arabs living in palestine".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20020626.shtml

Why does the left support the Palestinians against Israel?

The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.

But the question does need to be asked. For it is completely inconsistent with the left's professed values to side with Israel's enemies. Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not.

The left speaks about its passion for democracy ("power to the people"). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat is precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt.



Generalisations and over simplifications.

The fact that a country is a democracy does not justify it being allowed to then act in a warlike manner against a weak and poor neighbour. The Isreali army has occupied the west bank and gaza and supported illegal settlements(which even the Isreali supreme court has outlawed), but that's OK, because we are a democracy. Special Pleading.

Arafat is not who is being supported. It is the people of palestine who are suffering.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by DrBenway
An answer to your question, by way of a parallel:

In Iran the communists worked together with the Islamists to overthrow the Shah. The more educated communist faction of the revolution felt it could guide and control the less educated fundamentalists. Unfortunately for them, they failed to appreciate the fervent loyalty that religionists can feel toward a spiritual guide. Shortly after the Shah was removed, the Ayatollah Khomeini usurped their initiative, and the communists were purged.

The far left has a tradition of alligning with disgruntled working class peoples wherever it finds them. Angry people provide an opportunity for revolution. But clearly, the Islamists don't want the communists in charge, nor do the communists have much interest in theocratic systems. A marriage of convenience doomed for divorce, if ever the revolution gets off the ground.

The current Islamic crisis has really soured me on the left. I want to scream, "Emperor, no clothes, ya morons!" when I hear the left apologize for Islam. Willful blindness.

Yet the right in this country, snuggling up to Pat Roberson et al, just turns my stomach.

*sigh*

Dear Dr. Benway,
Please be more active on this forum.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway
An answer to your question, by way of a parallel:

In Iran the communists worked together with the Islamists to overthrow the Shah. The more educated communist faction of the revolution felt it could guide and control the less educated fundamentalists. Unfortunately for them, they failed to appreciate the fervent loyalty that religionists can feel toward a spiritual guide. Shortly after the Shah was removed, the Ayatollah Khomeini usurped their initiative, and the communists were purged.

The far left has a tradition of alligning with disgruntled working class peoples wherever it finds them. Angry people provide an opportunity for revolution. But clearly, the Islamists don't want the communists in charge, nor do the communists have much interest in theocratic systems. A marriage of convenience doomed for divorce, if ever the revolution gets off the ground.



the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principal is one that the US understands and uses well. Refer to Unita, Osama, Chile, Panama, the list goes on and on. It is not a specialty of the extreme left.



The current Islamic crisis has really soured me on the left. I want to scream, "Emperor, no clothes, ya morons!" when I hear the left apologize for Islam. Willful blindness.



I 'apologize' for Islam only in the same sense that I tolerate xianity, or other religions. All religions have their absurd and violent aspects, or haven't you been reading your history books lately. Ultimately, people of sense reject the violent aspects, until the next occasion when the extremists get a win, and revive the concept of fundamentalism.

The current rise of fundamentalism goes back the the overthrow of the shah of iran, and gave it a lot of credibility. The Shah was backed by who else, but the US and the CIA.



Yet the right in this country, snuggling up to Pat Roberson et al, just turns my stomach.

*sigh*

extremists everywhere. why pick on just islam? or haven't you heard of the IRA and extremist Hindus?

[Earthborn]

Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracyI think that is debatable, certainly from a 'leftist' standpoint.

Not only is 'the Left' in favour of 'power to the people' it is also in favour of protection of 'minorities' and 'the oppressed'. This means that the sort of democracy they favour is a democracy that has a constitution that limits what the government is allowed to do. For instance in today's Germany the government has no right to oppress Jews, no matter how many people are in favour of it! Democracy should not be a form of 'mob rule' in which the majority can do to the minority what ever it likes.
In such a constitutional democracy it should be impossible to stop people from going to work because of their religion or ethnicity. It should be impossible that the government blows up homes of people that unfortunately happen to be family members of criminals. It should mean that when a specific group of its population is lagging behind in prosperity or even falling back in poverty, the government should intervene to stop it.

Also 'the Left' is in favour of 'seperation of church and state' which does not exist in Israel. I understand that it isn't even possible to have a secular marriage in Israel, only Jewish marriages are recognized. (If that's not true and I have been had by Leftist propaganda, I apologize.)In Europe most of people that belong to the Left, hate americans.I'm sorry, but I happen to know quite a few people on the Left and no one I know, I repeat no one, hates americans (if that means all Americans. There are some who hate very specific Americans, for some reason the Americans they do hate almost always happen to be presidents, republican or democrat).So, they are anti-israeli mostly because they are anti-americans.It should be noted that the support in Europe for the Zionist movement came mostly from the Left as a reaction to Nazism.Look at the Palestinian issue. Which suggestion have you ever heard by a leftist? Nothing!How about: 'peace talks' ?

"Yeah, but they had peace talks, and did it bring peace? No."

Peace talks are peace. That's what peace is: you settle your differences by talking, not fighting. Peace isn't easy, it requires constant maintenance. And peace talks do not suddenly stop all violence.

"But the other side doesn't keep its promises."

And the other side feels exactly the same about you.

"There is no point in making peace. They just hate us and want to kill us all."

A very wise man once said: "You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends."
Can anyone remember who it was?

[Beausoleil]

Why does the left support the Palestinians against Israel?

Does it? What an interesting way of framing the question. What constitutes supporting the Palestinians against Israel? Does making any criticism whatsoever of Israel's policies (such as continued settlement building) count as supporting the Palestinians, for instance? I think that's about the only definition that even begins to make the assertion true (of course it means George Bush is on the left, but there you go!). In essence, the author either means 'Why doesn't the left accept that Israel is completely perfect in its treatment of the Palestinians?' or the implied assertion fails at the first hurdle.

I think it's very revealing of the way the author thinks. You're either totally committed to Israel and it can do no wrong or you're square behind Saint Yasser. Ridiculous. Israel vs Palestine is not a football game, and it is possible to believe both sides are capable of improvement.

The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.

All this shows is how little the author knows about Europe , Western news media and universities (and the extreme narrowness of the outlook of the people he associates with if this is taken for granted!). In my experience these all exhibit a wide range of opinions about Israel. I can't speak for the other two.

The left speaks about its passion for democracy ("power to the people"). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat is precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt.

So, let me summarise.

Making any criticism whatsoever of Israel constitutes supporting the Palestinians and hence Yasser Arafat and hence suicide bombers. So many straw men they could almost launch their own intifada.

because "palestinians" are a modern invention. Before the 6 day war they were Jordanians. I call them "arabs living in palestine".

Well, before 1948 Israelis were Jewish citizens of other countries (since there was no Israel), but so what? And when was Gaza ever in Jordan? But ok, I'll go along with it.

So here's an idea, since someone asked. I cooked it up while I was writing the above...

I think Israel should withdraw from the areas of Jordan and Egypt it has occupied, dismantling the settlements it has built in the interim and bringing its citizens home. It should then build an iron curtain along the border to make sure no terrorists can get in (how much easier this will be when it doesn't have citizens scattered across the territory who need to be able to cross the border all the time!) and declare that anyone coming within 200 yards of the wall will be shot on sight. Arabs living in Israel who want to move out should be allowed to - it will help make room for the returning Israelis (who I'm sure won't mind stepping into the role currently occupied by the Arab population of democratic Israel). The non-left wing people who think Israel is perfect will no doubt be happy to stump up any cash needed for this, maybe the current handouts it lives off from the USA (why do right wingers go along with this international version of social security, by the way? ;) ) will be able to be reduced to recoup the outlay.

The 'arabs living in Palestine' should then be allowed to decide whether they wish to rejoin the countries they were once part of or to attempt to set up a separate state to be organised along whatever lines they wish. Their borders are to be guaranteed by the US and Europe but the territory is to remain demilitarised beyond a police force. Those 'leftists' from your list who care to should shoulder the burden of investing in the civilan infrastructure of the recently occupied territory.

Seems to me like the poster who said this guy was a chump has the evidence on his side. Content free ultra-right windbaggery and question-begging is about all it is.

And don't tell me the Palestinians were offered removal of settlements at Camp David since 30 seconds' googling of Israeli sources will show you that it's utter tosh - Israel had no intention of dismantling most of its settlements. Even the settlers who complained about the dismantling that was proposed didn't claim that all settlements would be dismantled.

[kittynh]

I emailed my neighbor in Brussels M.Dubois, he is a member of the communist party. He said openly, "Well, we really still don't like Jews very much. I think the Jews can't take any responsibility for how they were treated during WWII. Historically Jews have not been welcome in Europe, and why they think anyone in Europe would be supportive of them now is beyond me."
He's honest at least.

[harrije]

Someone up above quoted something like:

because "palestinians" are a modern invention. Before the 6 day war they were Jordanians. I call them "arabs living in palestine".


And prior to Partition, they were called...Palestinians, as were the Jewish immigrants in the region, the first of whom showed up during the 1920s-1930s during the British occupation of the region. Even more Jewish immigrants arrived after public clamor over the discovery of the concentration camps and Hitler's treatment of the Jews was discovered near the end of the European campaign in WWII.

Prior to the 1920s, they were called Palestinian Turks, and they were subjects of the Ottoman Empire (as had been their ancestors, going back hundreds of years). There were some Jewish residents of the area during the Ottoman reign, and the Ottomans had a reasonably peaceful attitude towards Jewish settlers in the region (possibly more reasonable and more peaceful than European nations at the time).

Prior to the Ottoman Empire, they were called Byzantines, and they were citizens of the eastern remnants of the Roman Empire. Prior to that, they were called Romans. Prior to that, they were Greeks. Prior to that, they were called Babylonians. At some point prior to that, they were called Israelis and Jordanians (Jordanians being a separate kingdom of the Hebrew people).

The Palestinians themselves are racially distinct from Arabs. I know it's hard to get a grasp on that here in the U.S., where we're used to thinking of race in terms of skin color, but not all "brown people" belong to the same race. Not even all brown Muslims.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
All religions have their absurd and violent aspects, or haven't you been reading your history books lately.
It's a false comparison: modern Islam vs. historical xtianity. A fair, and far more relevant, comparison would be modern Islam vs. modern xtianity.

The current rise of fundamentalism goes back the the overthrow of the shah of iran, and gave it a lot of credibility.
Islamic law, the Shari'ah, goes back farther than that. Sunni Islam, the form practiced by about 85% of Muslims, accepts the Sharia'ah as God's will. Fortunately, many Muslims are willing to live in sin and aren't actively working to make the Sharia'ah the law of the land everywhere. A very precious few are in favor of secularization. I wish the demographics were more encouraging.
The Shah was backed by who else, but the US and the CIA.
So now what do we do? I say we take a firm stand against any movement which advocates the political oppresion of its own citizens on the basis of sex, race, or religion. This will put us directly at odds with the Muslim world, but so be it.
extremists everywhere. why pick on just islam? or haven't you heard of the IRA and extremist Hindus?
Because Islamic states explicitly support the political subjugation of women and non-Muslims. By opposing this practice, it's my hope that the more liberal Muslims will be forced to come out of the closet, and a reformation of Islam will happen.

[Bjorn]

The Palestinians themselves are racially distinct from Arabs. Please explain how they are a different race? :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Please explain how they are a different race? :confused:

i have read that they are close, racially, to the jews, which would make sense.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i have read that they are close, racially, to the jews, which would make sense. I've seen some evidence that jews and arabs and 'palestinians' are all the same race (which seems logical). Let's see if 'harrije' has some evidence for the opposite - I'm absolutely no expert on this. :confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

It's a false comparison: modern Islam vs. historical xtianity. A fair, and far more relevant, comparison would be modern Islam vs. modern xtianity.



and modern xianity isn't invoked in wars? GWB has been doing a lot of summoning up of his god, lately.

there have been times when islam has been much more tolerant than xianity, and vice versa. it appears to go in cycles. This idea that we are now 'modern' is pretty small minded in itself. In two hundred years time, we will be viewed as outdated and primitive.



Islamic law, the Shari'ah, goes back farther than that. Sunni Islam, the form practiced by about 85% of Muslims, accepts the Sharia'ah as God's will. Fortunately, many Muslims are willing to live in sin and aren't actively working to make the Sharia'ah the law of the land everywhere. A very precious few are in favor of secularization. I wish the demographics were more encouraging.



and the bible has plenty of absurd laws. fundamentalism is usually 'massaged' by reasonable people to the practical. the demographics are changing, for the worse. is anything being done to address the reasons for this change? not much. the US won't even admit it's mistakes, which would be a good start.



So now what do we do? I say we take a firm stand against any movement which advocates the political oppresion of its own citizens on the basis of sex, race, or religion. This will put us directly at odds with the Muslim world, but so be it.



what are you after, a world war? This from a country in which most of those in positions of power are men?



Because Islamic states explicitly support the political subjugation of women and non-Muslims. By opposing this practice, it's my hope that the more liberal Muslims will be forced to come out of the closet, and a reformation of Islam will happen.

you concentrate on a limited set of facts, but do not acknowledge that there are a lot more facts around that don't make the picture so clear and simple. Try to face a complex world in an overly simplistic way, and you are heading directly for trouble.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
This idea that we are now 'modern' is pretty small minded in itself.
By "modern" I simply mean "current." No value judgment offered.

and the bible has plenty of absurd laws.

The Bible is not the law of the land in any nation state. The Shari'at is the law of the land in several nation states. Aside from a few xtian fundies who want to pass some symbolic laws elevating the status of xtianity, there is no movement to make the Bible the law of the land in any xtian countries. However, there are strong movements to implement Shari'at in several nations (e.g., Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt).

what are you after, a world war?
Is that the argument that justifies a friendship with the devil?

This from a country in which most of those in positions of power are men?
Now you are obviously trolling. Only a troll or an idiot would attempt to compare the life of a woman under Islamic law to the life of a woman in the U.S.

you concentrate on a limited set of facts
I concentrate on the law. Changing the law is a powerful way to change customs and behavior.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I concentrate on the law. Changing the law is a powerful way to change customs and behavior.

like the drug laws? Laws to work need the backing of the people.

[Ben Shniper]

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1040



Why the Left Loves Osama [and Saddam]
by Daniel Pipes
New York Post
March 19, 2003
Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?

Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos." Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.

Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?




Continued... Check the link

-Ben

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
like the drug laws? Laws to work need the backing of the people.
I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that the free world ought not speak out against laws which oppress people by virtue of their sex, race, or religion?

Edit to add: I'm stunned that I'm even having this conversation. The fact that I'm having this conversation ought to raise all sorts of question marks in thinking people's minds.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Edit to add: I'm stunned that I'm even having this conversation. The fact that I'm having this conversation ought to raise all sorts of question marks in thinking people's minds.

It's ok Doctor. Be careful because you wouldn't want to be accused by Unique of being a racist .

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Edit to add: I'm stunned that I'm even having this conversation. The fact that I'm having this conversation ought to raise all sorts of question marks in thinking people's minds.

Why? I havent been on this forum long, so I dont know your political views.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1040



Continued... Check the link

-Ben

thats right, just like the jews, all the left are in on their own conspiracy, and all think exactly the same thing.

for me, it just amazes me that the only act of terrorism and mass deaths that appears to matter in the past 100 years is 9/11.

The act of the 9/11 was 'brilliant' in the sense that it was an unbelievable impressive act. even jews were watching it were excited.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that the free world ought not speak out against laws which oppress people by virtue of their sex, race, or religion?

Edit to add: I'm stunned that I'm even having this conversation. The fact that I'm having this conversation ought to raise all sorts of question marks in thinking people's minds.

i am stunned to think that i am even having this conversation.

are you saying that by just making a law, human behaviour can be changed? laws work because people want them to work.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


It's ok Doctor. Be careful because you wouldn't want to be accused by Unique of being a racist .

you started the 'racist' calling first, for what I still can't understand, while making quite racist comments yourself.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I don't follow your argument. Are you saying that the free world ought not speak out against laws which oppress people by virtue of their sex, race, or religion?

Edit to add: I'm stunned that I'm even having this conversation. The fact that I'm having this conversation ought to raise all sorts of question marks in thinking people's minds.

education is a much more effective method of long term change than just creating laws. speak out against oppression by all means, but why stop at the short comings of Islam.

how about the oppression of women in the conservative jewish sects?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
but why stop at the short comings of Islam.

Who says I'm stopping?

The Islamists get center stage at the moment, because Islamic law is the law of the land in several nations.
how about the oppression of women in the conservative jewish sects?
If it's a Jewish sect in New York, or Israel, a woman has the option of exiting the sect. I don't know of any Jewish nation states where orthodox Jewish teachings are the laws of the land.

I don't have a problem with mutually consensual sadomasochism. If a woman enjoys living as a slave, more power to her.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Tony
Why? I havent been on this forum long, so I dont know your political views.

I'm arguing that people ought to condemn laws which politically oppress persons by virtue of their sex, race, or religion. In a forum of free thinkers, one would expect I'd be preaching to the choir.

Next, I shall argue that the world is round. Later, I will argue that the Bible is not the literal word of God.

[davefoc]

Prager might have argued the nuts and bolts of the Israel/Palestinian issue as he does at times, but in this particular editorial he just took the easy way out, i.e. call the people who don't agree with you names.

Prager says:
In general, the left does not care about women, independent judiciaries, minorities, democracy, gays or almost anything else for which it marches.

On the face of it, this is not true. A lot of people on the left would say they are on the left because they believe in the very issues that Prager says they don't. As a conservative, I believe that a great many of the policies the left promotes have disastrous consequences when they are followed, but I see no reason to believe that the left is less sincere in their beliefs than anybody else.

I would suggest to Prager that the reason the left is not as unrelentingly pro-Israel as a lot of the conservatives that he alludes too is because without some of the conservatives biases with respect to this issue the conservatives wouldn't be all that understanding either of a country that does what Israel does. Amongst the conservative's biases on this issue I would include the following:
1. Many conservatives are religious and come at this issue with the preconceived notion that Jews belong in Israel. The fact that the area was lived in and controlled by non-Jews for the last 2400 years is not generally acknowledged by this group.
2. Most conservatives have a strong bias in favor of the US and its historical policies. To question the strong support of Israel requires one to look critically at past US policies and conservatives are not disposed to do this.
3. Groups tend to form consensuses on a broad range of issues so if an individual generally identifies himself as a conservative he is more likely to adopt the views of the conservative group including the pro-Israeli positions even if he has not formed an independent view of this issue.

Although Beausoleil might have been a little off topic with his plan for Israel, it is exactly what I have thought for a long time. I think the US should tell Israel to do this or something similar or we cut off foreign aid and support. I would have liked to have seen Bush take some kind of a stand like this before the current war. Our unrelenting support of Israel under Sharon, has caused us to lose the support of even moderate Arabs. I doubt that Sharon enjoys even close to majority support in the US but he is very skillful at revving up the proIsrael minions to keep the US on a disastrous course not only for the US but potentially Israel as well.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I'm arguing that people ought to condemn laws which politically oppress persons by virtue of their sex, race, or religion. In a forum of free thinkers, one would expect I'd be preaching to the choir.



I share your frustration. The hypocracy is astounding. America (and allies) is fighting a war against people that hate everything the left claims to stand for; gay rights, womans rights, secular government, freedom of speech, ect.. What does the left do? (Generally speaking of course) Apologize for these animals!!! If the left were true to it's ideals, it would take it's rightful place beside America and fight.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I've seen some evidence that jews and arabs and 'palestinians' are all the same race (which seems logical). Let's see if 'harrije' has some evidence for the opposite - I'm absolutely no expert on this. :confused:

I´ve never liked the race definition.. The lines are so blurred and its like trying to find a transitional fossil when every single thing is in fact transitional.

I would consider the race in this case to mean nurture type of thing mostly dependant on the culture so in that case one could argue that the arabs and palestinians are pretty close and the jews differ from them..

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Who says I'm stopping?

The Islamists get center stage at the moment, because Islamic law is the law of the land in several nations.
If it's a Jewish sect in New York, or Israel, a woman has the option of exiting the sect. I don't know of any Jewish nation states where orthodox Jewish teachings are the laws of the land.

I don't have a problem with mutually consensual sadomasochism. If a woman enjoys living as a slave, more power to her.

you tried to get married in Israel lately? Until very recently, you could only be married by a Rabbi in a religious ceremony, between two jews. The laws of the sabbath routinely get tighter and tighter. The army is used to defend radical lunatics in absurd settlements, risking their lives for crackpots.

The US congress has just passed a resolution calling for a day of national prayer and fasting.

Homosexuals cannot love each other without risking arrest and humliation, as well as getting there names placed on sex offenders registers.

You get the idea, casting the first stone, beams in eyes, etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


I share your frustration. The hypocracy is astounding. America (and allies) is fighting a war against people that hate everything the left claims to stand for; gay rights, womans rights, secular government, freedom of speech, ect.. What does the left do? (Generally speaking of course) Apologize for these animals!!! If the left were true to it's ideals, it would take it's rightful place beside America and fight.

Animals are they. That says it all. I am not apologising for saddam, only trying to see the people suffering behind all the political b**t. And the reasons for the war are all b**t.

They have not been clearly enunciated from the start.
The actual aim of the war has not even been determined.

What about the hyprocrisy of claiming to be going out there to help the Iraqis, when if Saddam had been clearly proven to comply with the WMD issue, the whole thing would, in theory, have been called off. Because that was the only issue ever presented to the UN.

They couldn't go on a Human Rights platform, because then half the planet would have been under threat.

As for GWB, he is not above using humand misery and death to further his own political aims.

Possibly innocent people are sent to death in Texas jails, on authorisation personnaly signed by him, for purely political 'tough on crime' reasons. There is out and out hyprocrisy for you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I'm arguing that people ought to condemn laws which politically oppress persons by virtue of their sex, race, or religion. In a forum of free thinkers, one would expect I'd be preaching to the choir.

Next, I shall argue that the world is round. Later, I will argue that the Bible is not the literal word of God.

I have never argued that there are aspects of Islam I do not agree with. The clitoridectomy for example. However, Islam as a religion is no worse than any other when practiced by people who are as reasonable as any others. The muslims in serbia were no different to the christians, for example. It was the christians, in fact, who used incredible brutality there to attack muslims, killing innocent civilians in cold blood.

I would have thought in a forum such as this, attitudes would be a little more informed and sceptical than just being taken straight from the front page of the media.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cleopatra

European leftists suffer ( in my opinion ) by a complex of inferiority.Hmmm. I also tried to figure out why the left is so enamored with palestinian arabs, and I came up with a related, but somewhat different, explanation.

The way i see it, the very existence of Israel denies the left's dreams of integration, lambs-lie-with-lions kind of thing. That so many jews fled to israel shows that Europe, civilized and modern and sophisticated and tolerant though it may be, isn't quite as civilized and modern and sophisticated and tolerant as the left would like to believe. Thus, lashing out at Israel is a defensive reaction of a sort -- jews fled Europe, but now aren't the oppressed harmless impotent people deserving of protective speeches and demonstrations any longer; and they had the gall to not save themselves the Left way, too!

To cover up the frustration with the jewish reaction to european political climate, the left strikes. It's a reaction of denial, I think -- the options are either to divert attention and shift the blame with claims of Israeli evil, or to admit that jews did the needful thing to survive where the left's ideologies couldn't save them. Too many feel the need to protect their views by choosing the first option.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Cleopatra

Hmmm. I also tried to figure out why the left is so enamored with palestinian arabs, and I came up with a related, but somewhat different, explanation.

The way i see it, the very existence of Israel denies the left's dreams of integration, lambs-lie-with-lions kind of thing. That so many jews fled to israel shows that Europe, civilized and modern and sophisticated and tolerant though it may be, isn't quite as civilized and modern and sophisticated and tolerant as the left would like to believe. Thus, lashing out at Israel is a defensive reaction of a sort -- jews fled Europe, but now aren't the oppressed harmless impotent people deserving of protective speeches and demonstrations any longer; and they had the gall to not save themselves the Left way, too!

To cover up the frustration with the jewish reaction to european political climate, the left strikes. It's a reaction of denial, I think -- the options are either to divert attention and shift the blame with claims of Israeli evil, or to admit that jews did the needful thing to survive where the left's ideologies couldn't save them. Too many feel the need to protect their views by choosing the first option.

Vic,
We don't usually agree....but as usual you have offered a very unique and interesting take on the subject. I believe you may have hit the nail on the head of this issue. Great post!

-z

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

I share your frustration. The hypocracy is astounding. America (and allies) is fighting a war against people that hate everything the left claims to stand for; gay rights, womans rights, secular government, freedom of speech, ect.. What does the left do? (Generally speaking of course) Apologize for these animals!!! If the left were true to it's ideals, it would take it's rightful place beside America and fight.You see, what you just did is express your feelings. Unlike you, very many people -- both on the left and the right -- feel and think. Once you start thinking, you start asking questions:

Do we know Saddam has WMD?
how about the rule of law? We may "know" that he does, but that line of reasoning holds no weight in any civilized court -- you need proof.
Is iraq, weak and sanctioned and inspected to the gills, any real threat?
Saddam is evil, but will we actually improve the situation by deposing him?
What would be the price for the region of iraq war -- would it unite the other arabic countries in their fear of US intervention? Would it give a public-opinion boost to muslim fundamentalism as the one force that can successfully oppose US interference?
etc. once you start thinking, it becomes obvious that there are many very good reasons to not attack Iraq; that "Saddam is evil, let's kill Saddam!" is a gut reaction utterly without any actual critical thought behind it. There may be good reasons to attack Iraq, but right now, none of those are in evidence.

The right feels, the left feels and thinks. :D

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

We don't usually agree....but as usual you have offered a very unique and interesting take on the subject. I believe you may have hit the nail on the head of this issue. Great post!I am left, but I am thinking left. Too bad so many conservatives feel the need to ignore the large numbers of thinking lefties in favor of the easily ridiculed woo-woo types. Well, there are plenty of woo-woo types on all places of the political landscape...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Not only is 'the Left' in favour of 'power to the people' it is also in favour of protection of 'minorities'.

Hmmmm The History of the Left Movements of Europe would contradict this statement but this is a topic for another thread!

I'm sorry, but I happen to know quite a few people on the Left and no one I know, I repeat no one, hates americans (if that means all Americans. There are some who hate very specific Americans, for some reason the Americans they do hate almost always happen to be presidents, republican or democrat).

Personally I justified the quote of Sir Winston regarding leftists." If you don't belong to the Left when you are 18, you don't have blood in your vains, if you still belong to the Left after that age, you don't have brains in your head" :)

I was born in Israel, grew-up in Greece( In Greece the communist party takes the 8% of the votes!!!!), studied in England and worked in Holland for a year to validate my licence. So, I have met many leftists.I haven't met, NOT A SINGLE person who belonged to the left and wasn't anti-american...

I am pro-Europe. I believe like crazy to the EU, I dream about a Europe that will expand from Atlantic to Uralia BUT I don't blame it on the States for our problems... I am not anti-american. Thsi is what distinguishes the Christian-Democrats (where I belong) from the leftists.

It should be noted that the support in Europe for the Zionist movement came mostly from the Left as a reaction to Nazism.

If you mean post WWII support, this is historically explained :)

The first Zionist leaders of Israel, visualized and partly achived ( the kibutz experiment) a social organization, very similar to the socialist dream of joint owenership.

Stalin dreamed of a socialist Israel in the sphere of influence of the angloamericans... he couldn't imagine that Israelis would take the interests of their country more seriously than the interests of the Communist Party...

So, the Left "abandoned" Israel and embraced the Arabs. Communists and Arabs have very little in common indeed, apart from the mentality of course...

How about: 'peace talks' ?
Peace talks are peace. That's what peace is: you settle your differences by talking, not fighting. Peace isn't easy, it requires constant maintenance. And peace talks do not suddenly stop all violence.

I agree with you. That's why I am pro-peace talks but you have to admit that Arabs made Barak to look like an idiot for sitting to the same table with them. From the moment peace talks have started, the violence against civilians has increased dramatically...
You see I blame Arabs for the come-back of Sharon...But this is my opinion of course...

Something for Mr.Unique

I have never called you a racist, you are far from being a serious threat to anybody. Serious racists have serious arguments .
Just notice this. Comments like " similar races" are questionnable. But I know you didn't say it the way it looks.

Jews and Arabs are both Semites. As Greeks and Germans are Indoeuropeans. This doesn't refer to their RACE but to their language. It shows that they belong to the same LINGUISTIC GROUP.

The myth of the race of Indoeuropeans ( or Semites) was widely used before WWII... so it's better to avoid it.Today we talk about linguistic groups.

Victor

You point of view might be different than mine but it's a psychological approach as well :-DD So, we agree ;)

[CapelDodger]

Just regarding the anti-Americanism of many lefties, it can hardly be denied that the US has been loudly and evangelically pro-capitalist since before anyone paid them any attention. Ditto anti-socialist. So anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism can easily be entwined. Obviously thinking people don't have anything against individual Americans as such, but many people with ideologies right, left or off the map don't actually do a lot of thinking about it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony

You see, what you just did is express your feelings. Unlike you, very many people -- both on the left and the right -- feel and think. Once you start thinking, you start asking questions:

Do we know Saddam has WMD?
how about the rule of law? We may "know" that he does, but that line of reasoning holds no weight in any civilized court -- you need proof.
Is iraq, weak and sanctioned and inspected to the gills, any real threat?
Saddam is evil, but will we actually improve the situation by deposing him?
What would be the price for the region of iraq war -- would it unite the other arabic countries in their fear of US intervention? Would it give a public-opinion boost to muslim fundamentalism as the one force that can successfully oppose US interference?
etc. once you start thinking, it becomes obvious that there are many very good reasons to not attack Iraq; that "Saddam is evil, let's kill Saddam!" is a gut reaction utterly without any actual critical thought behind it. There may be good reasons to attack Iraq, but right now, none of those are in evidence.

The right feels, the left feels and thinks. :D


Check my post again dumba$$. I never mentioned saddam, I was talking about the islamic fundamentalists and the palestinian fascists that the left defends and protects. Your whole post was a gut-reaction, if you took the time to accually read what I wrote, in the context in which I wrote it, you would understand that I was not talking about saddam or Iraq.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Islam as a religion is no worse than any other when practiced by people who are as reasonable as any others.

Are you saying that we don't have to pay attention to the specific teachings of any religion, because "rational" people will ignore the bad teachings?

How about Scientology? The People's Temple? Heaven's Gate? Don't you think the teachings of these religions have some effect upon the behavior of their members?

[Earthborn]

So, I have met many leftists.I haven't met, NOT A SINGLE person who belonged to the left and wasn't anti-american... There is of course a big difference between 'being anti-american' and 'hating americans'. These two things are not necessarily connected. If someone is against 'american economic imperialism' or 'american foreign policy', 'american arrogance' and 'american isolationism' it is fair to say that the person is anti-american. It does not automatically follow that this person hates people who happen to live in (the United States of) America.Stalin dreamed of a socialist Israel in the sphere of influence of the angloamericans... he couldn't imagine that Israelis would take the interests of their country more seriously than the interests of the Communist Party...You are surely not assuming that what Stalin thought is in any way representative of the left?Communists and Arabs have very little in common indeed, apart from the mentality of course...Since the Arabs are an ethnic/cultural group of people with widely differing political ideals and communists are a political group with widely differing ethnicities and cultures, I'd say that they don't even share a mentality (whatever that means).but you have to admit that Arabs made Barak to look like an idiot for sitting to the same table with them.Oh, no doubt. However: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,93096,00.htmlFrom the moment peace talks have started, the violence against civilians has increased dramatically...If I recall correctly there was a short period of time when the peace talks caused a dramatic decline in violence on both sides.

[CapelDodger]

Going back to the original quotaton :
... the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- ...
Apart from 'Europe' - which presumably includes Berlosconi's Italy and Chirac's France - with their 'sophistication', we have here writers, academics, philosophers and artists. (He doesn't mention Hollywood directly, funnily enough). Basically, he means The Intellectuals. This guy doesn't like The Palestinians and he doesn't like The Intellectuals, ergo ...
As to the leftie nature of the Western Press, from what I can see of the US press it's been very supportive of Bush's policy on Israel and Iraq. Most of the UK press certainly has been. The whole News International output has been frantically gung-ho worldwide on Iraq, and is certainly not pro-Palestinian. 'Europe' presumably excludes the UK, but does include those cowardly pacifist Germans (that's always been their problem, lack of self-assertion). (Why do the French get all the hate-mail, by the way, when the Germans were the first to make loud official pronouncements against the current War? Is it because more Americans drink German beer than drink French wine? Just a thought.)
As to academics, philosophers and artists, these days they're mostly too busy raising funds to make distinctions between right and left.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Are you saying that we don't have to pay attention to the specific teachings of any religion, because "rational" people will ignore the bad teachings?

How about Scientology? The People's Temple? Heaven's Gate? Don't you think the teachings of these religions have some effect upon the behavior of their members?

you won't get far legislating against them. you can't outlaw stupidity. if it was up to me, I would outlaw the World Weekly News. The best antidote is education. The muslims in Bosnia, and I have met some refugees, were infinitely more civilised than the Serbian extremists out to perform ethnic 'cleansing' of them. Fortunately, the moderate Serbs are in power now, although that has not prevented their prime minister from being assasinated by the extremists that are left.

Many of the Muslim aspects that I dislike are actually cultural artifacts, using Islam as a justification, such as the clitoridectomy, or the head to toe clothing. Once again, education is the best weapon against these extremes.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Earthborn
There is of course a big difference between 'being anti-american' and 'hating americans'.

Of course! Europeans question the american policy ( and the american taste in clothes and their sense of humor...) but the problem is what they do ( the europeans I mean) to deal with it...I know... this is a topic for another thread!
You are surely not assuming that what Stalin thought is in any way representative of the left?

No, I don't need to assume because I try to follow the left intelligenzia...
Well... let's be honest! It took 20 years to the Eurocommunist sand 50 years to the rest of the leftist parties to deny Stalin... Don't judge the Left from what they say the last 5 years...

Since the Arabs are an ethnic/cultural group of people with widely differing political ideals and communists are a political group with widely differing ethnicities and cultures, I'd say that they don't even share a mentality (whatever that means).

Yes of course YOU are right but I took my right( as an offspring of Aristophanes...) to use my political imagination. You know the basic thing that Arabs and Leftists have in common is this crazy idea that the World owes something to them... It has never occured to them that "there is not such a thing as a free lunch..." Of course I can't proove this, It's my idea from what I have been reading for years now...And of course I might be wrong.

If I recall correctly there was a short period of time when the peace talks caused a dramatic decline in violence on both sides.

Yes, it was this distinctive calmness before the storm...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



No, I don't need to assume because I try to follow the left intelligenzia...
Well... let's be honest! It took 20 years to the Eurocommunist sand 50 years to the rest of the leftist parties to deny Stalin... Don't judge the Left from what they say the last 5 years...



there is no more a 'the left' than there is a 'the jews'. many leftists were quick to realise the menace of stalin. others were slow to realise the dream was dead.



Yes of course YOU are right but I took my right( as an offspring of Aristophanes...) to use my political imagination. You know the basic thing that Arabs and Leftists have in common is this crazy idea that the World owes something to them... It has never occured to them that "there is not such a thing as a free lunch..." Of course I can't proove this, It's my idea from what I have been reading for years now...And of course I might be wrong.



i would think the main thing is that they feel they are owed what was stolen.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony


because "palestinians" are a modern invention. Before the 6 day war they were Jordanians. I call them "arabs living in palestine".

I almost forgot! You are not right on that. No matter what the Arabs thought about them before Nasser, palestinians have distinctive cultural differencies. You can trace these differencies in their language and of course in their food. Palestinians have a kitchen of their own that it's quite different than the kitchen of Lebanon or Syria...

Moussaka for exampe, the celebrity of Greek kitchen is of Palestinian origin, very few people know that :)

And of course they are the most good-looking Arabs of Middle East...more than the Lebaneses...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

there is no more a 'the left' than there is a 'the jews'. many leftists were quick to realise the menace of stalin. others were slow to realise the dream was dead.

Many, indeed, but those " many" weren't many enough to change the political orientation of the leftist parties ( from eurocommunists to ortodox communists) of Europe.

i would think the main thing is that they feel they are owed what was stolen.

I would accept that from the Europeans of the Era of Rosa Luxemburg maybe... but the problem is that you hear to leftists of our days claim the same things... I believe in opportunities and not in debts. Once you are given the opportunity and you fail, you are not entitled or better, you have no right, to complain...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I almost forgot! You are not right on that. No matter what the Arabs thought about them before Nasser, palestinians have distinctive cultural differencies. You can trace these differencies in their language and of course in their food. Palestinians have a kitchen of their own that it's quite different than the kitchen of Lebanon or Syria...

Moussaka for exampe, the celebrity of Greek kitchen is of Palestinian origin, very few people know that :)

And of course they are the most good-looking Arabs of Middle East...more than the Lebaneses...

I stand corrected. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Many, indeed, but those " many" weren't many enough to change the political orientation of the leftist parties ( from eurocommunists to ortodox communists) of Europe.



I would accept that from the Europeans of the Era of Rosa Luxemburg maybe... but the problem is that you hear to leftists of our days claim the same things... I believe in opportunities and not in debts. Once you are given the opportunity and you fail, you are not entitled or better, you have no right, to complain...

thats funny, because I don't recall any attempts at mass murder in Europe. The small minority might have been experiencing a wierd fantasy, they never got into any positions of power. Democratic Socialist governments came and went. but once again, no slaughter of millions.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I would accept that from the Europeans of the Era of Rosa Luxemburg maybe... but the problem is that you hear to leftists of our days claim the same things... I believe in opportunities and not in debts. Once you are given the opportunity and you fail, you are not entitled or better, you have no right, to complain...

And the left has been adaptable to change. The conservatives, on the other hand, only look further back into history for the truth.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And the left has been adaptable to change. The conservatives, on the other hand, only look further back into history for the truth.

Translation:

the left has had to reinvent itself constantly to try and maintain any significance at all. The conservatives, on the other hand, have had no need.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Translation:

the left has had to reinvent itself constantly to try and maintain any significance at all. The conservatives, on the other hand, have had no need.

A very good interpretation, and perhaps worthy of a thread on it's own.

I for one, as a 'leftist', find I do change my opions over time.

As to whether this is desirable or not, is a matter of debate. I would think it is a good thing, as it indicates a capacity for reflection. The idea that one already has all the answers, such as ****iyama and the end of history, I find to be Hubris that only the most ignorant would be capable.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I for one, as a 'leftist', find I do change my opions over time.


Who was it who said (soomething like):

If you are a conservative when you are young you have no heart. If you are a socialist when you are old you have no brain.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


thats funny, because I don't recall any attempts at mass murder in Europe. The small minority might have been experiencing a wierd fantasy, they never got into any positions of power. Democratic Socialist governments came and went. but once again, no slaughter of millions.


I didn't get it. What do you mean?

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
... 50 years to the rest of the leftist parties to deny Stalin...
You must surely have heard of Trotsky and the Trotskyists. Stalin cerainly did - apart from Trotsky's assassination and the purges, he set his Communist Party on them in 1930'2 Spain. In the UK, after Krushkev's denunciation of Stalin, the CP split (again) into an official and an unrepentant Stalinist strand. Lenin's Bolsheviks were never a majority in the Socialist world and the official Communist Party was never a majority even in Stalin's time. I don't think you've been keeping up with a representative sample of the socialist left.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper


Who was it who said (soomething like):

If you are a conservative when you are young you have no heart. If you are a socialist when you are old you have no brain.

i think it was churchill. in fact it is interesting the number of people who do exactly the opposite.

[Earthborn]

Well... let's be honest! It took 20 years to the Eurocommunist sand 50 years to the rest of the leftist parties to deny Stalin... How ignorant can one get of history?

It makes no sense that the 'rest of the leftists parties' would hang on to Stalin longer than the communists who (some of them at least) actually believed in him.

You as a self-proclaimed Christian Democrat should also realize that the early christian democratic movements had many similar ideals as socialists. In fact the establishment considered the movement one 'a step a way from socialism'. I suggest you watch the film Daens when you get the chance: http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/movie/182283

Don't judge the Left from what they say the last 5 years...Why not? It makes things a lot easier if you don't have to consider all the weight of history carried by any political movement, and just critize them on what they are saying today.I didn't get it. What do you mean?Millions were slaughtered in Stalin's Soviet Union. Political dissidents, many of whom we would consider leftists, communists, socialists whatever, were send to slave labour in the Gulag's in Siberia... Sure to never return alive.

This did not happen in post war Europe. The closest that happened in Europe was in Nazi Germany during the war, and the Nazis were staunchly anti-communist.

[jj]

No person I'd consider left supports the Palestinians.

The cranks (PETA-like folks, for instance), may say so, but then again, they're cranks, not leftists. I know quite a few people (most of them back in NJ) who are VERY left and very Jewish, and you can be intensely sure that they don't support the palestinian cause at all, nor the various suicide-murders.

So, the question asked in the first place is maliciously phrased. Why am I not surprised?

[davefoc]

good freakin grief jj,
What the heck are you talking about?

Who exactly are you mad at?

The premise of the question seems about right to me, i.e. people who hold leftwing views are more likely to be more understanding of the Palestinian point of view than conservatives.
Excluding, of course, leftwing Jews who tend to hold strongly pro-Israel views (but certainly not always).

Do you disagree with this? Do you have a personal definition of leftwing that includes a requirement that leftwing individuals be strongly pro-Israel including pro-Sharon?

For what it's worth, I thought the question was interesting and I thought a lot of people had something interesting to say about it. You appear to be pissed at some of them for something, but I'm not sure at who or for what.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
Millions were slaughtered in Stalin's Soviet Union. Political dissidents, many of whom we would consider leftists, communists, socialists whatever, were send to slave labour in the Gulag's in Siberia... Sure to never return alive.

This did not happen in post war Europe. The closest that happened in Europe was in Nazi Germany during the war, and the Nazis were staunchly anti-communist.

And you have the gall to criticize other people's ignorance of history? :rolleyes:

Bosnia? Remember all the mass graves, ethnic cleansing and emaciated shadows of people staring out from behind the barbed wire of concentration camps? It's not that long ago.

Lets not forget that the Nazis were "National Socialists". Their economic policies and vast state apparatus were more akin to socialist central planning than free market economics. Anti-communist they may have been, but the Nazis were not capitalists.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Earthborn:


And you have the gall to criticize other people's ignorance of history? :rolleyes:

Bosnia? Remember all the mass graves, ethnic cleansing and emaciated shadows of people staring out from behind the barbed wire of concentration camps? It's not that long ago.

Lets not forget that the Nazis were "National Socialists". Their economic policies and vast state apparatus were more akin to socialist central planning than free market economics. Anti-communist they may have been, but the Nazis were not capitalists.

bosnia was nothing to do with socialism.

[Shane Costello]

originally posted by a_unique_person:
bosnia was nothing to do with socialism.

Nor did I claim it had. I was addressing the claim that Europe has been genocide free since WWII.

[Earthborn]

Bosnia? Remember all the mass graves, ethnic cleansing and emaciated shadows of people staring out from behind the barbed wire of concentration camps? It's not that long ago.Okay, you got me there! :)

Of course it did not involve millions of deaths, 'only' thousands. Bad enough of course.
And for the rest: well, what a_unique_person said.Lets not forget that the Nazis were "National Socialists". Their economic policies and vast state apparatus were more akin to socialist central planning than free market economics.True also. I guess it was just because they figured they would get easier support from the masses, since socialism was pretty popular. Today's ultra-rightwing xenopobe parties try to pass of as liberal democratic, since that's more popular today.

And of course it should be noted that all countries in Europe (maybe even the US, I am not sure) had strong government involvement in heavy industry. The neo-liberal movement that strives to privatize just about everything was still to be invented.

In fact this strong government involvement is was what started the EU. The steel industry was made interdependent throughout Western Europe so no one could start a war without seriously damaging their economy. Central planning was what caused peace in Europe! Yay! ;)Anti-communist they may have been, but the Nazis were not capitalists.Nor were they leftists. That they were definitely not...

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
True also. I guess it was just because they figured they would get easier support from the masses, since socialism was pretty popular. Today's ultra-rightwing xenopobe parties try to pass of as liberal democratic, since that's more popular today.

Actually the communists enjoyed as much support as the Nazis during this period, as did the social democrats. IIRC correctly the Nazis never got more than 43% of the vote in any election to the Reichstag.

"Ultra-rightwing xenophobe" is a highly subjective term. A lot of people on the left use it to tar anyone who suggest some contstraints on immigration and granting of asylum. Who do you consider to be right wing xenophobes masqerading as liberal democrats?

And of course it should be noted that all countries in Europe (maybe even the US, I am not sure) had strong government involvement in heavy industry. The neo-liberal movement that strives to privatize just about everything was still to be invented.

And heavy industry is more or less extinct in Europe, and this legacy of government involvement has left European economies in a state of sclerosis. AFAIK there was no government ownership of indutries in America, or even post war Germany for that matter. Of course, subsidies are a different matter.

In fact this strong government involvement is was what started the EU. The steel industry was made interdependent throughout Western Europe so no one could start a war without seriously damaging their economy. Central planning was what caused peace in Europe! Yay! ;)

No, peace in Europe was caused by the defeat and military emasculation of the main aggressor, Germany.

[CapelDodger]

From Shane Costello:
No, peace in Europe was caused by the defeat and military emasculation of the main aggressor, Germany.
That argument would take some justifying. War in Western Europe has not always been caused by German aggression. And the German armies, of West and East, were quite formidable forces within a decade of 1945. One obvious reason for the end of hostilities within Europe is the influence of the US and USSR, which weren't going to allow such goings-on in the areas they dominated. Diplomatic and economic efforts such as the Coal and Steel Agreement and the Treaty of Rome reflected a desire to make conflict unworkable. Simply destroying the aggressive capability of one nation would not preclude the rise of another. That seems to make Earthborn's argument much stronger than yours (I appreciate that a stark statement does not constitute an argument; I am open to persuasion).

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Capel Dodger:
That argument would take some justifying. War in Western Europe has not always been caused by German aggression.

In the twentieth century it was, IMO. The roots go all the way back to the formation of a United German reich following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. In it's aftermath Bismarck was intent on avoiding war at all cost. He formed the "Dreikaiserbund" with the Austrians and Russians to keep France isolated and incapable on embarking on a war of "revanche", and avoided an active colonial and naval policy so as to not antagonise the British.
Kaiser Wilhelm II undid Bismarck's diplomacy, embarked on a naval weapons race with Britain, and brought the French and British together by his misadventures in Africa. This factors led to the outbreak of World War I.

While the Treaty of Versailles contributed to World War II, Gustav Stresmann did much to improve it's terms by diplomatic means. Reparations levelled on Germany were continually decreased to the stage where reparation payments were less than American loans granted to Germany as part of a number of recovery plans. It's hard to see how the war would have broken out were it not for Hitler's well advertised policies of Aryan superiority and Germany's need for "Lebensraum". Don't forget which countries were doing all the appeasing in the '30s.

And the German armies, of West and East, were quite formidable forces within a decade of 1945.

Neither had nuclear capabilities. Formidable as it may have been, the West German Bundeswehr wasn't in the same class as the Wehrmacht, and wouldn't have defended continental Europe from a Soviet invasion on it's own.

Diplomatic and economic efforts such as the Coal and Steel Agreement and the Treaty of Rome reflected a desire to make conflict unworkable.

True, but this was only possible in a Europe defended from the Soviet threat by the US military, which had already played a preeminent role in ridding Europe of the Nazi threat.

Simply destroying the aggressive capability of one nation would not preclude the rise of another.

In this case it did, if we disregard the Soviet threat.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Earthborn
How ignorant can one get of history?



Someone can be very ignorant indeed. That's why I come to this forum; to be educated by you. Please bare with me...

Capel Dodger


You must surely have heard of Trotsky and the Trotskyists. Stalin cerainly did - apart from Trotsky's assassination and the purges, he set his Communist Party on them in 1930'2 Spain. In the UK, after Krushkev's denunciation of Stalin, the CP split (again) into an official and an unrepentant Stalinist strand. Lenin's Bolsheviks were never a majority in the Socialist world and the official Communist Party was never a majority even in Stalin's time. I don't think you've been keeping up with a representative sample of the socialist left.

Don't tell me now, that you did the usual mistake, confusing Trotskism with anti-stalinism...

Ok. Seriously now. It wasn't Trotsky only. You forgot the poor revisionist, you forgot Mao...

All these were arguing the essence of Stalinism, whether the evolution should be perpetual or not( BS!!! Who cares??? ), things of very little interest to the common people that were dying out of poverty...

The first communists who accepted the function of the Parliament and they aknowledged the legitimacy of the political parties, of various political parties, were the Trio of the Eurocommunists; E.Berlinguair, G.Marsais and S.Cariyio...

A communist party accepted the fact that a parliament is legitimate only in 1970!!! Give me a break here!

What are you talking about? About variations on the same tune???

Now it's time for fun :

Mr. Unique

And the left has been adaptable to change. The conservatives, on the other hand, only look further back into history for the truth.

Yes, you see, the conservatives in Europe ( I don't know whether you are European or not...) created History. Everything that is worth mentioning in the History of this bloody continent, has been created by the conservatives. Even your right to speak-up was won by the conservatives for your sake.

We don't regret it, for you amuse us ...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Yes, you see, the conservatives in Europe ( I don't know whether you are European or not...) created History. Everything that is worth mentioning in the History of this bloody continent, has been created by the conservatives. Even your right to speak-up was won by the conservatives for your sake.

We don't regret it, for you amuse us ...

It is the radicals who create, the conservatives who appropriate. Suffrage is a perfect example. Conservatives derided the idea endlessley, it was typical of a 'liberal' idea.

I would defy you to find one conservative woman out there who would now give up her right to vote.

[jj]

Originally posted by davefoc
good freakin grief jj,
Do you disagree with this? Do you have a personal definition of leftwing that includes a requirement that leftwing individuals be strongly pro-Israel including pro-Sharon?


I stated what I observe. That's all. Where you get support for Sharon is somewhere else than from me, so why don't you figure out where that comes from and attack them?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
There is of course a big difference between 'being anti-american' and 'hating americans'. These two things are not necessarily connected. If someone is against 'american economic imperialism' or 'american foreign policy', 'american arrogance' and 'american isolationism' it is fair to say that the person is anti-american. It does not automatically follow that this person hates people who happen to live in (the United States of) America.


Could you please define "economic imperialism."

I am curious. Are the high agricultural subsidies Europe (CAP) has in place a form of this? Don't they hurt third world farmers?

(I realize the US has these too. However, Europe might want to look at some of its own actions in this regard.)

[Earthborn]

That's why I come to this forum; to be educated by you. Please bare with me...You are forgiven! :)were the Trio of the Eurocommunists; E.Berlinguair, G.Marsais and S.Cariyio...I never heard of them, but that's okay because Google never did either.A communist party accepted the fact that a parliament is legitimate only in 1970!!! Give me a break here!The strange fact is that all communist countries had parliaments. They weren't parliamentary democracies but they were parliamentary dictatorships.

And do you remember the saying 'All power to the Soviets' ? Soviets were councils that allowed ordinary citizens to participate in political issues. Basically they were small democratic parliaments, and people demanded that those would become the way the Soviet Union would be run. Of course having ten thousand parliaments wasn't very practical so a bigger parliament was made to 'rule them all' and that got hijacked by dictators and the democratic ideals of the communist movement went out the window.Yes, you see, the conservatives in Europe ( I don't know whether you are European or not...) created History. Now you remind of that guy from the IndyBrit-com Goodness Gracious Me, who claims that every person of importance was Indian...

Me: "And what about Karl Marx... Didn't he make history?"
You: "He was conservative!"
Me: "Nelson Madela?"
You: "Conservative."
Me: "Gorbachov?"
You: "Definitely conservative."

See, it's just silly to claim that all people who ever made history were of one political persuasion. Reality is all people who lived in the past made history...

[Earthborn]

"Ultra-rightwing xenophobe" is a highly subjective term. Yes, it is.A lot of people on the left use it to tar anyone who suggest some contstraints on immigration and granting of asylum.But only the ones who lack the eloquence to critize those views on their own merits.Who do you consider to be right wing xenophobes masqerading as liberal democrats?I was specifically thinking of the FPÖ in Austria, Vlaams Blok in Belgium or some of those parties in Serbia. Maybe Berlusconi too, since he has at least some ties with the neo-fascists.
Of course they try to legitimize by pretending to be Liberal Democrats, but they're doing a lousy job.Could you please define "economic imperialism."Strange that you would ask that, since I didn't even claim they were useful terms in any way. And I didn't define the other terms either.
Basically they are all leftist rhetoric and don't necessarily mean anything.

But if you want to have some idea what it is, you just have to look at the power American companies have all around the world.
I am curious. Are the high agricultural subsidies Europe (CAP) has in place a form of this? Don't they hurt third world farmers?I would say yes to both.(I realize the US has these too. However, Europe might want to look at some of its own actions in this regard.)We're talking about 'the Left', not Europe. When the Left says something and Europe does something different, it doesn't mean that suddenly they are both hypocritical. :)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, it is.But only the ones who lack the eloquence to critize those views on their own merits.I was specifically thinking of the FPÖ in Austria, Vlaams Blok in Belgium or some of those parties in Serbia. Maybe Berlusconi too, since he has at least some ties with the neo-fascists.
Of course they try to legitimize by pretending to be Liberal Democrats, but they're doing a lousy job.Strange that you would ask that, since I didn't even claim they were useful terms in any way. And I didn't define the other terms either.
Basically they are all leftist rhetoric and don't necessarily mean anything.

But if you want to have some idea what it is, you just have to look at the power American companies have all around the world.
I would say yes to both.We're talking about 'the Left', not Europe. When the Left says something and Europe does something different, it doesn't mean that suddenly they are both hypocritical. :)

you will find it is typically the poilitically conservative farmers who are in favour of farm subsidies.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Earthborn:
I was specifically thinking of the FPÖ in Austria, Vlaams Blok in Belgium or some of those parties in Serbia. Maybe Berlusconi too, since he has at least some ties with the neo-fascists.
Of course they try to legitimize by pretending to be Liberal Democrats, but they're doing a lousy job.

Don't forget Le Pen in France. It's clear though that right wing extremism is a very rare phenomenon, since most countries in Europe have no serious right wing xenophobic groups.

The groups you mention are indeed liberal democrats. They've stood for election, there's no evidence that any of them used electoral fraud or intimidation, and they've accepted the electoral results. Contrast this with the behaviour of the EU council of ministers (consisting mainly of Left of centre politicians) after Haider's accession to government to Austria. Their ostraciation of Austria was a disgrace, considering the fairness of the election was never in doubt.

But if you want to have some idea what it is, you just have to look at the power American companies have all around the world.

But it's not a coercive power, rather a power garnered by the willingness of people to buy their goods and work for these companies. It so happens that I live in a country that owes it's recent economic renaissance to American companies. No one is coerced into working for Pfizer, or forced at gunpoint to buy a Dell PC.

Originally posted by MikeB:
I am curious. Are the high agricultural subsidies Europe (CAP) has in place a form of this? Don't they hurt third world farmers?

Agricultural subsidies hurt everyone. Obviously the Third World farmers who are denied access to first world markets and have subsidised produce from the first world dumped on them. Don't forget as well taxpayers in the first world who subsidise the farmers, then have to pay inflated prices for their produce. This hurts peole on lower incomes the most, since they spend aproportionaly larger part of their income on food.

So why is it that anti-globalisation nuts direct all their bile at trade conferences and multinationals?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You are forgiven! :)I never heard of them, but that's okay because Google never did either.

You have never heard of Enrico Berlinguair? And you have an opinion on the European Left?

orders the Court to stop giggling! It happens...


That's why I addressed exclusively to CapelDodger on this matter :)

Stay by me though, I might come up with new question and I will need someone to type it to the google search box.

Queens don't type, it ruins their manicure...

[Mike B.]

What about the late Pim Fortuyn? (spelling?)

He was considered right wing, but was he?

He was in favor of limiting immigration because he felt Muslim immigration would affect Holland's liberal social policy and system, and as a gay man he benefitted from it.

So limiting immigration is right wing, but being in favor of a liberal social policy is left.

So where was he considered on the political spectrum in Holland?

[Lurker]

"The left speaks about its passion for democracy ("power to the people"). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat is precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt"

You are aware that this fully functioning democracy that you are touting denies the right to vote for arabs in the occupied lands? Yes, that is right. Arabs in the occupied territories of Israel do not get a say in their goernment at all.

Lurker

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lurker
"The left speaks about its passion for democracy ("power to the people"). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat is precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt"

You are aware that this fully functioning democracy that you are touting denies the right to vote for arabs in the occupied lands? Yes, that is right. Arabs in the occupied territories of Israel do not get a say in their goernment at all.

Lurker

even if they had the vote, it might not be used. for palestinians, participating in the institutions of Israel acknowledges their conquest. refusing to take part in them is a form of civil protest.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


even if they had the vote, it might not be used. for palestinians, participating in the institutions of Israel acknowledges their conquest. refusing to take part in them is a form of civil protest.

Interesting. I did not know this. How common is this civil protest? Do you know what % of arabs who can vote do choose to vote?

Lurker

[BillyTK]

Why does the left support the Palestinians against Israel?

The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left -- Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world -- supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.


Good point, it is simply taken for granted.

But the question does need to be asked. For it is completely inconsistent with the left's professed values to side with Israel's enemies. Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not.

Oh dear. So Prager ignores his own question and proceeds with the stereotype that the left--across europe, in the media and everywhere else--is an homogenous group. I guess it makes his job simpler, but it undermines any credibility his viewpoint could have.

Now I can explain why some "leftists" of the marxist persuasion are more likely to side with Palestinians against Israel, but I wouldn't make the mistake of generalising this view to all left-wingers, or even to all marxists as there's typically a range of (even contradictory) view points on just about any subject you care to mention. Other than that Marx wrote "Das Kapital" (although I'm sure there's some wrangling over the extent of Hegel's contribution to it, but I digress).

So the core of marxism is a form of social analysis based on conflict theory, identifying who are the powerful and who are the powerless, how this situation came to be and how it may be addressed. So marxists are more likely to identify with the Palestinian people as they are less powerful than, and subject to the will of, the Israeli government. Marxists are therefore also more likely to identify with the Iraqi people ('though not necessarily with Saddam) against the US invasion.

There are some marxists who take a moral absolutist position as well, although this is by no means unique or integral to marxism. This argues that those who don't oppose oppression support at least by their inactivity, but imo this is problematic to say the least as it positions anyone who takes this view wrt to Israel/Palestine in parallel with typical European right-wing anti-semitism.

So there we go. I guess there's some irony that this marxist stance could be said to characterise the Palestinians as the "new Jews" but at least it's more coherent than trying to pathologise this position in terms of guilt or inferiority.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Lurker
Interesting. I did not know this. How common is this civil protest? Do you know what % of arabs who can vote do choose to vote?
I believe you have to be an Israeli citizen to vote. Palestinians can apply for Israeli citizenship, however, other Arab states have discouraged this.

There are more than a million Arab citizens. Some hold seats in the Knesset.

Israel, however, grants certain privileges to Jewish Israelis, as part of the Law of Return. I view this law as a kind of affirmative action which may have had some justification early in the creation of the state of Israel, just as quota laws helped move blacks and other minorities socially upward in the U.S. However, I don’t think any system of discrimination based upon religion or cultural identity has any merit now.

I would like to see Israel completely remove all forms of discrimination based upon race, sex, or religion, from their law books. Israel is largely a secular state. Most Israelis that I’ve known have been atheists (my social circle, I guess). So I’m hopeful that progressive reforms are possible.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, seem to want an Islamic state. I think that’s a very bad idea. I think the Israelis and the Palestinians have to come to accept each other and get along. The only reasonable way to do this, in my view, is for all parties to agree to a fully secularist government, where all can participate.

No Muslim government. No Jewish government. Just government.

[Elektrix]

DrBenway, can you clarify what discrimination or priviledges are awarded solely to Jews in Israel?

The reason I ask is because this piece on the rights of Arab citizens in Israel says the only real distinction is that Jews are required to serve in the military, whereas Arabs can choose whether to serve or not:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#a

So I was just curious about what those priviledges are...

That myths page also goes into issues like whether Arabs are barred from buying land, discriminated from certain jobs, etc:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#b

So, just curious what the discrimination is exactly, as it seems like Israel does go out of their way to try and be inclusive. But I clearly don't have all the information here.

But it strikes me as odd in particular that you hear so much about how badly Israel supposedly treats non-Jews, while you don't seem to hear a ton of complaints about the treatment of Jews in other middle eastern countries. There's a lot of things said about how evil Israel is, but how come the same people protesting Israel don't also protest the treatment of Jews in other countries?

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html

-Elektrix

[Earthborn]

Cleopatra:You have never heard of Enrico Berlinguair?Well, no. And since Google can't find anything about him, I guess it means you have no idea how to spell his name. Or he wasn't all that important to begin with.

Mike B:What about the late Pim Fortuyn? (spelling?)Spelling is correct.He was considered right wing, but was he?His supporters seem to think so, because they consider everyone who ever critized him as belonging to a 'Leftwing-clique'He was in favor of limiting immigration because he felt Muslim immigration would affect Holland's liberal social policy and system, and as a gay man he benefitted from it.Correct. He was specifically against Muslims. Not just 'terrorists' or 'fundamentalists' but all of them. He even made a comment that if he could get away with it, he would not allow any Muslim in. So he favoured discriminating on basis of religion. He even said that our First Amendment of the constitution, that regulates that all people are to be treated 'equally in equal circumstances' should be abolished.

Although it is true that he had much support from the lower classes, his ideas would not have favoured them. He favoured ending many of the government benefits on which many of them depend.So where was he considered on the political spectrum in Holland?I think he was fairly consistently right wing. He was not extreme rightwing as I would define it, he wasn't entirely xenophobic because he never wanted to deport foreigners. He even favoured legalizing a group of illegal immigrants (which group exactly is still unclear and a hot topic in his party: "What would Pim have wanted?" instead of "What would be the best course of action?"). He was certainly stauchly anti-Muslim and certainly thought of the Muslim world as one homogenous block.

Shane:Don't forget Le Pen in France.Shoot! I knew I forgot one...Contrast this with the behaviour of the EU council of ministers after Haider's accession to government to Austria. Their ostraciation of Austria was a disgrace, considering the fairness of the election was never in doubt.I agree. Especially since many countries had already many of the laws in practices in use Haider was critized for, or even worse ones. I think Haider could very well be considered a 'xenophobe' but he's actually more open about it than many of the governments that critized him but went even further than he (officially) wanted.But it's not a coercive power, rather a power garnered by the willingness of people to buy their goods and work for these companies.No violent power is used, true. But I guess there is a bit of 'soft persuasion' even seduction going on. Calling it 'imperialism' is spot on, since that's how most empires formed.

Elektrix:
Of course you get should read stuff from the other side too:
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet1.htm
http://www.arabhra.org/

Or from independent human rights organizations:
http://www.phr.org.il/phr/Pages/PhrHomepage.asp
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/israel_and_occupied_territories/

Heck, you might even read some stuff from Israelis themselves:
http://www.rhr.israel.net/overview.shtml
http://www.btselem.org/

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Someone can be very ignorant indeed. That's why I come to this forum; to be educated by you. Please bare with me...





Now it's time for fun :

Mr. Unique



Yes, you see, the conservatives in Europe ( I don't know whether you are European or not...) created History. Everything that is worth mentioning in the History of this bloody continent, has been created by the conservatives. Even your right to speak-up was won by the conservatives for your sake.

We don't regret it, for you amuse us ...

This is absurd.

Parliamentary Democracy, the concept of human rights, liberté,
egalité et fraternite' were all created in opposition to conservative religous and monarchist forces.

Conservatism has its merits but by definition innovation is not usually one of them!

Oh and feel free to "bare" anything you want here;)

[Elektrix]

Earthborn, thanks for the links, and i'll read through them, but they don't seem to answer my questions exactly. I am asking you how exactly Arab citizens of Israel are discriminated against? I see this concern about not enough health services, for example, but I am still asking you to tell me how the state of Israel's laws, etc. discriminate against Arab citizens.

So, I've looked at the links you've sent, but they don't answer the question I asked, and I hope you can answer it directly, telling me what actual laws the state of Israel has that discriminates against non-Jews, Arab citizens of Israel, etc.

I tried to access the arabhra site but I couldn't connect to the server.

It had been stated that the state of Israel actually discriminates against non-Jews, but the links you provided don't fully explain that. Obviously people are worried about the human rights situation, health care, etc., but that seems like a different issue.

I wasn't asking about the human rights and health care issues as much, as much as actual laws, etc. that you are saying discriminate against non-Jews. If you can tell me what those laws are, then I would understand why someone would say the state of Israel discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens and needs to be reformed.

So, what I'm asking for is how Israel's non-Jewish citizens are discriminated against by laws on the books, etc. in Israel. All I can find are examples showing a policy of non-discrimination in things like hiring, housing, etc. The hospitals I've looked into in Israel don't discriminate against non-Jews, and provide care to everyone.

And also, do you have the same problem with the other Arab nations and their discrimination against Jews and Christians? I am just curious.

-Elektrix

[Earthborn]

I tried to access the arabhra site but I couldn't connect to the serverThat's a pity, because that one explained it very well. It is the reason why I put that one on top. I'll quote a bunch of relevant passages, and hope you will be able to check the site itself later. I removed some of the text, and the emphasis is all mine. It should be noted that it is written from a palestian point of view and I give no guarantee on accuracy.Israel does not have a formal constitution, but has drawn up a series of Basic Laws that form a constitution in evolution. (snip) Given the lack of an explicit law that constitutionally protects equality for all citizens, this emphasis on the Jewishness of the State again compromised the equal rights protection for the Palestinian Arab minority.Palestinian Arabs rights to run for elections to the Israeli
parliament, (snip), are also limited by their acceptance of the notion of the Jewish state. These limits are expressed in the Law of Political Parties (snip) and, in particular, the amendment of section 7A of the Basic Law: The Knesset which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." Under this section a party platform that challenges the Jewish character of the state, that for example calls for full and complete equality between Jews and Arabs in a state for all its citizens, can be disqualified, as lists have been in the past. The law demands that Palestinian Arab citizens may not challenge the state's Zionist identity.Citizenship Rights & the Law of Return: (snip) This privilege is for Jews only. Palestinian Arabs can only get citizenship by birth, residence (after meeting a cumulative list of conditions) or naturalisation.Special Status of Jewish Organisations: (snip) the World Zionist Organisation- Jewish Agency Law, the Jewish National Fund, Jewish Agency, and World Zionist Organisation have special constitutional status in Israel and are known as quasi-governmental bodies. They are Jewish organisations which explicitly aim to benefit Jews only, but have authority for certain governmental functions, including developing the land and housing projects and settlements. Their activities are co-ordinated with the government and are given tax benefits, and they have a lot of influence on decision-making boards (particularly in agriculture and land use).

The Palestinian Arab minority is excluded entirely from these functions as either beneficiaries or participants. Further no government organisations perform the same functions for non-Jews. Consequently, Palestinian Arab needs are systematically disregardedMilitary Service: Many government preferences and benefits in Israel are conditioned on performing military service. Whilst military service is technically compulsory for all citizens, by discretion the vast majority (90%) of Palestinian Arabs are not required to serve; whereas the majority of Jews do. As a consequence, they do not receive the wide range of benefits, including larger mortgages, partial exemptions from course fees, and preferences for public employment and housing. The discriminatory factor is that in many cases the link between the benefit offered and the requirment for military service is tenuous, often as in employment opportunities, and that government offices provide benefits beyond what is legislated. The most celebrated example of this was the level of state child benefits, which until 1997 were conditioned on military service, rather than more obvious socio-economic factors.
The impression that this is a mechanism for privileging Jews is borne out by the fact that Jewish Yeshiva students, who like Arab citizens do not serve, are granted the benefits anyway, a policy which has been upheld by the courts.Place of Living: The government categorises the country into different zones and awards different statuses and benefits to different towns. For instance, it denotes certain areas national development areas, which then makes them eligible to receive benefits (snip) These areas are supposed to be determined according to socio-economic criteria. Yet the zones are drawn to include a disproportionate number of Jewish localities rather than Palestinian Arab ones.
(snip) The zoning was used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian Arab minority from these benefits.Budgets & Resource Allocation: The Budget Law, which governs state funds, does not specify what proportion should be earmarked for minorities; (snip) Palestinian Arabs receive substantially less funding for e.g. local government budgets (snip) and have less resources allocated (snip) Often this discrepancy is justified by the government running projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries.To date, there is not one court case where the Supreme Court has accepted a case of discrimination against the Palestinian Arab minority and ruled to protect its rights. It usually accepts the claim of the State that its policies serve national priorities and thus are not discriminatory, or that different treatment between Jews and Arabs is legitimate, as they are different groups.Here's also a very telling article from the Physicians For Human Rights site:
http://www.phr.org.il/phr/Pages/PhrArticle_Unit.asp?Cat=37&art=339&Pcat=4
And also, do you have the same problem with the other Arab nations and their discrimination against Jews and Christians? I am just curious.Yes, I do. And let me give you an alternative explanation why 'Leftists' are more likely to criticize Israel than some other states: maybe they have better hopes that Israel can change those policies, since it is a democracy. Just a suggestion, no guarantees on the accuracy of that either. :)

[Elektrix]

Thanks Earthbound, that at least clarifies the point..... although that bit about land seems like it needs more detail. The things I read above seem to question how practically anyone is denied land, as it seems like an awful lot of it is reserved so that no-one can buy it.

I have to admit though, an awful lot of those examples of discrimination seem not so much like official policy, but complaints that there aren't more things outlined that specifically are benefits or protections..... I mean, there's a lot of stuff in there along the lines of "The zoning was used to exclude the vast majority of the Palestinian Arab minority from these benefits." and "Often this discrepancy is justified by the government running projects in cooperation with the Jewish Agency, thus necessitating only Jewish beneficiaries." - but I would be curious about what the real-world impact of these things was and is, not just the statements about what they might do in theory.

Are there any actual examples of how this has really affected non-Jewish citizens in practice?

The thing about people in the Knesset not being able to challenge the fundamental nature of what Israel seem a little questionable to me to, I guess, but I wonder how this really works in practice.

Anyway, they are at least interesting points...... and perhaps some areas open for reform, but I still just don't see so much an active policy to discriminate against non-Jews, as much as that certain things happen in the course of the state of Israel that can give that perception that there is some sort of favoritism, and in practice that might be true, but it still seems like, as a whole, an awful lot is done to make non-Jewish citizens protected and welcome. It just doesn't seem like the blatant and hateful discrimination that I've heard some people make it out to be.

-Elektrix

[DrBenway]

I think the bias against the Arabs in Israel is wrong in principle, but I think it’s understandable, in the same way that Arabs are singled out for special searches at airports in the U.S. The Palestinians, for the most part, have openly rejected the right for the state of Israel to exist. In a poll done not long ago, 70% of Palestinians living in the occupied territories supported continuing the suicide bombings. Thus, I can’t blame Israeli Jews for fearing the Israeli Arabs.

Why can’t these people get along with each other? If a Palestinian and a Jew in the U.S. happened to have a dispute, such as a landlord-tenant problem, they’d go to court and work out some arrangement which fulfilled legal notions of fairness. Would their cultural identity matter? Not one bit.

Several times, Israel has offered an easy citizenship to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The Palestinians for the most part rejected this offer. Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, and leading Islamic authorities have issued statements against Arabs becoming Israeli citizens, on the grounds that Israel itself should not exist.

Why?

Because of the teachings of Islam. Islam forbids Muslims to recognize non-Muslim political authorities as legitimate.

Now, I always get into trouble here when I say, “Islam says X.” Invariably, someone will say, “Not all Muslims believe X” or “I know Joe Muslim, and he doesn’t believe X.” I recognize these criticisms as valid. But I also want to make the point that among Sunni Muslims, who make up about 85% of the Islamic world, there is a solid, explicit consensus upon most matters of Islamic law. And that consensus rejects secularism. That consensus insists that Muslims work toward the establishment of an Islamic government able to enforce Islamic law.

Some Muslims are openly in favor of secularism, but they are a minority opinion.

Many more Muslims would prefer a secular society, where Islamic law is not strictly enforced, but are unsure of the legitimacy of their desires. They’re like Catholics who engage in premarital sex or use birth control. They feel what they do is somehow a sin, but they don’t really want to stop sinning. They hope God or Allah will not make too big a deal out of their hypocrisy.

It’s that vast army of hypocrites that provide me with hope for the future. Their uncertain footing means that they are easily pushed. Unfortunately, the best pushers out there, the most educated, authoritative, and compelling leaders of the Islamic faith, are those in the fundamentalist camp. Thus, when a crisis hits the Muslim world, the fundamentalists gain in political power.

The world needs an awakening of liberal, secular Muslims. We need eloquent, compelling leaders in the Islamic world able to articulate the value of a separation between mosque and state. We need Muslims able to base their arguments upon basic Islamic principles, so that their ideas are palatable to persons with a more fundamentalist upbringing.

Where will we find these Martin Luther Kings of Islam? How do we swell the ranks of the Muslim Unitarians?

The more I’ve thought about this, the more I’ve grown to dislike the doctrine of cultural relativism. In the name of respecting all cultures, the West has become tolerant of beliefs and practices in opposition to basic human rights. Criticism of “third world” cultural practices has been condemned as a form of racism or western arrogance.

I believe the West’s tolerance of Islam, in the name of respecting other civilizations, has led many Muslims to believe that their religious practices are just as valid as any others, and that, as Muslims, they are being persecuted when their right to “freedom of religion” is in any way limited.

But just as the right to free speech has its limits, the right to freely worship has limits. Those limits are the principles of basic human rights, as outlined by the United Nations.

We in the West have been undermining the liberal, secular Muslims of the world, via our boneheaded tolerance of Islam generally. Read this essay for more: http://www.secularislam.org/women/tribalism.htm

When we in the West begin to demand that secular Muslims speak up, I think we’ll start to see an emerging secular movement. If we say, “If you’re the kind of Muslim who opposes secular principles in government and politics, then we’re opposed to you. If you’re a Muslim who will work toward establishing a secular government, then we’re on your side.”

Once we say this, we will find ourselves unable to support most Palestinians, and a fair number of Israelis. But given that most people want support and approval, our stance may have an impact.

An Islamic Palestinian state will not mean peace in the Middle East. A secular state might work, if it explicitly includes the desire to work in cooperation with the state of Israel, for the good of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

I generally think of myself as more left than right. But I don’t understand leftists who support Islamic movements, such as the movement to “liberate” Palestine.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway
I think the bias against the Arabs in Israel is wrong in principle, but I think it’s understandable, in the same way that Arabs are singled out for special searches at airports in the U.S. The Palestinians, for the most part, have openly rejected the right for the state of Israel to exist. In a poll done not long ago, 70% of Palestinians living in the occupied territories supported continuing the suicide bombings. Thus, I can’t blame Israeli Jews for fearing the Israeli Arabs.




Hang on a second.

You have got your logic in a big knot here.

The understandable bias could work both ways. Israel has an army of occupation in the West Bank.

Many palestinians have accepted the existence of Israel. They won't, however, accept the right of Israel to occupy what is left of Palestine, which appears to be fair enough. And they won't co-operate with Israel in it's occupation.



Why can’t these people get along with each other? If a Palestinian and a Jew in the U.S. happened to have a dispute, such as a landlord-tenant problem, they’d go to court and work out some arrangement which fulfilled legal notions of fairness. Would their cultural identity matter? Not one bit.



a point i have made before, there aren't jews knocking down houses with bulldozers anywhere near where I live.



Several times, Israel has offered an easy citizenship to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The Palestinians for the most part rejected this offer. Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, and leading Islamic authorities have issued statements against Arabs becoming Israeli citizens, on the grounds that Israel itself should not exist.



now you are mixing two different trains of thought again. why should they accept Isreali citizenship? Maybe they don't want to.



Why?

Because of the teachings of Islam. Islam forbids Muslims to recognize non-Muslim political authorities as legitimate.



you can see now where tangled logic gets you



Now, I always get into trouble here when I say, “Islam says X.” Invariably, someone will say, “Not all Muslims believe X” or “I know Joe Muslim, and he doesn’t believe X.” I recognize these criticisms as valid. But I also want to make the point that among Sunni Muslims, who make up about 85% of the Islamic world, there is a solid, explicit consensus upon most matters of Islamic law. And that consensus rejects secularism. That consensus insists that Muslims work toward the establishment of an Islamic government able to enforce Islamic law.

Some Muslims are openly in favor of secularism, but they are a minority opinion.

Many more Muslims would prefer a secular society, where Islamic law is not strictly enforced, but are unsure of the legitimacy of their desires. They’re like Catholics who engage in premarital sex or use birth control. They feel what they do is somehow a sin, but they don’t really want to stop sinning. They hope God or Allah will not make too big a deal out of their hypocrisy.



and like the catholics, they will just do what makes sense anyway.



It’s that vast army of hypocrites that provide me with hope for the future. Their uncertain footing means that they are easily pushed. Unfortunately, the best pushers out there, the most educated, authoritative, and compelling leaders of the Islamic faith, are those in the fundamentalist camp. Thus, when a crisis hits the Muslim world, the fundamentalists gain in political power.



have you any evidence of this? i would have thought the rise in fundamentalism is that it fought back and got results.



The world needs an awakening of liberal, secular Muslims. We need eloquent, compelling leaders in the Islamic world able to articulate the value of a separation between mosque and state. We need Muslims able to base their arguments upon basic Islamic principles, so that their ideas are palatable to persons with a more fundamentalist upbringing.



so perhaps the US should not have indulged it's own imperialistic whims and not backed the Shah in Iran who suppressed all liberal thought. was it any surprise the extremists, who risked it all, and kicked him out, got some brownie points for effort.

[quuote]

Where will we find these Martin Luther Kings of Islam? How do we swell the ranks of the Muslim Unitarians?

The more I’ve thought about this, the more I’ve grown to dislike the doctrine of cultural relativism. In the name of respecting all cultures, the West has become tolerant of beliefs and practices in opposition to basic human rights. Criticism of “third world” cultural practices has been condemned as a form of racism or western arrogance.

[/quote]

since all faiths are based on values, not facts, they cannot be anything but relative. and that also means they are constantly in a state of flux, dependining on how they are interpreted



I believe the West’s tolerance of Islam, in the name of respecting other civilizations, has led many Muslims to believe that their religious practices are just as valid as any others, and that, as Muslims, they are being persecuted when their right to “freedom of religion” is in any way limited.



It is a delicate matter of consideration for others and your own rights. These matters cannot be decided simply. Look at the arguments on freedom of speech, for example. Evidence that a religion is actually causing harm to others, seems to get a legal response in the end.



But just as the right to free speech has its limits, the right to freely worship has limits. Those limits are the principles of basic human rights, as outlined by the United Nations.

We in the West have been undermining the liberal, secular Muslims of the world, via our boneheaded tolerance of Islam generally. Read this essay for more: http://www.secularislam.org/women/tribalism.htm

When we in the West begin to demand that secular Muslims speak up, I think we’ll start to see an emerging secular movement. If we say, “If you’re the kind of Muslim who opposes secular principles in government and politics, then we’re opposed to you. If you’re a Muslim who will work toward establishing a secular government, then we’re on your side.”



they aren't capable of standing up for themselves? Taking the paternalistic role has as much danger of producing a backlash of 'don't tell me how to live'. Education is much more.

If you read that link, it is also saying, as I have said before, that much of the 'Islamic' customs are in fact tribal customs that have been 'merged' into Isalm. Much like the Christian Xmas and Easter. You may also note that this is referring to such acts as this



Is honour killing tribal? Is it Islamic? Is there any justification for violence against women in the religion of Islam? What is the role of religion in honour killing? Can we explain honour killing within the general framework of domestic violence against women? Is honour killing a form of universal patriarchy?



crimes of 'honour' also exist in other religions, and are more of a cultural phenomenon, I believe. Look at Hinduism, for instance.



Once we say this, we will find ourselves unable to support most Palestinians, and a fair number of Israelis. But given that most people want support and approval, our stance may have an impact.



Well, that's if we get that far......



An Islamic Palestinian state will not mean peace in the Middle East. A secular state might work, if it explicitly includes the desire to work in cooperation with the state of Israel, for the good of both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

I generally think of myself as more left than right. But I don’t understand leftists who support Islamic movements, such as the movement to “liberate” Palestine.

In fact, after Oslo, the two states were already reaching a pragmatic level of economic interdependence. Isreal needs labour, and the Palestines had plenty of people after a job.

The liberation of Palestine was not an 'islamic' movement, but a nationalist one. It has been appropriated to a certain extent by extemist opportunists.

[Earthborn]

It just doesn't seem like the blatant and hateful discrimination that I've heard some people make it out to be.I agree that the laws themselves aren't necessarily so bad if you look at them one at a time. Since Israel is a democracy, I don't think it is very likely that laws like "An Arab is worth 3/5ths a Jew" or "It is the divine duty of all citizens to destroy the Arab race" are likely be considered legitimate by the courts.

However, I am sure you can understand that the laws I quoted could be easily misused in such a way that they favour Jews over Palestinians. A few years ago, the Dutch police managed to jail a few demonstrators at a eurosummit for 'being members of a criminal organization'. Somebody in the police force figured that people who demonstrate basically form an ad-hoc organization meant to disrupt city life. Well, that idea lasted just long enough for the summit to be over before judges could rule that the arrests were illegitimate. I am sure you can come up with a few examples from your own country where a perfectly good law was interpreted in such away that it could be used to legitimize something totally different. It happens sometimes.

You should realize that Israel has more than enough people who are more than willing to warp such laws in their own favour. There is so much hatred and resentment on both sides. And because of what happened who could blame anyone for feeling that way? Suppose you were in a zoning comity would you zone equally for the population group the murderer of some of your family members belongs to? Could you be really fair?

Remember that sometimes two laws can be relatively harmless or even good, but implemented together form a lethal cocktail. For instance the laws in Saudi Arabia about 'women should not be treated by male doctors' and 'women are not allowed to be doctors'. Same with the 'Palestinians can choose not to join the Israeli army' and 'People who join they army recieve benefits'. A palestinian is not likely to choose to join the army if it could mean he's commanded to bulldoze his neighbours home or even just to meet the person he threw rocks at as a kid. It's just not going to happen. But that also means he will miss those benefits and not getting the same job opportunities.

I think what is relevant is not so much the laws themselves, although I think some of them are obviously unfair. What is much more important is the effect those laws actually have. With so much animosity in that country, for obviously good reasons for both sides, I think it is reasonable to assume that the laws will be implemented in an unfair way. The results of that can be read on those human rights sites.

And for the Palestinian side of the issue, may I suggest the film 'The Inner Tour' by Ra’anan Alexandrowicz? It demonstrates wonderfully one side of why there is so much tension in Israel:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/filmfest/weho/2002/inner_tour.html
http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies4/InnerTour.htm
Watch it when you get the chance. It is pretty good. The thing about people in the Knesset not being able to challenge the fundamental nature of what Israel seem a little questionable to me to, I guess, but I wonder how this really works in practice. Well, it works in such away that there are only 2 seats in parliament occupied by Arabs even though they are 20% of the population and the secular Shinui party that strives for seperation between church and state gets in the new government. I guess it's okay to challenge the Jewish nature of the Israeli state, as long as your Jewish... :confused:

[Elektrix]

I see what you mean now about how the laws could be used and twisted by certain people to serve as a tool for discrimination. It seems like that fundamental issue happens in a lot of countries though..... but it seems like Israel at least has a court system that would seem to hold people accountable, as it sounds like there are specific things in place to try and prevent discrimination and provide equal opportunities for jobs, housing, etc.

But in practice I thought you said a lot of Arabs choose not to run or vote, so how is that the fault of the Jewish state if more people don't vote or run for election? It's not like Israel forbids them from running or from voting.

It's unfortunate that there are only a few seats held, but I don't know what the solution there is..... you can't force people to run and vote if they don't want to.

I'm still unsure what you mean about it not being ok to question the Jewish nature of Israel. I mean, I see that you said there is something that said a party with that platform can be dismissed or whatever, but when has this ever happened in practice? I mean, have there actually been candidates or parties who were forbidden to run because of their views? And what is meant by questioning the Jewish nature of Israel? From what you quoted above I thought it sounded like the only thing looked down upon was basically saying there didn't deserve to be a homeland for the Jewish people, or something along those lines. Or is there more to it?

Anyway, thanks at least for the answers to my questions, and it does help at least clear up some of these questions for me, although I still think the issues Israel struggles with are not all that different from what many countries have to deal with, especially when it comes to individuals twisting laws and regulations to go beyond what their purpose is for nefarious reasons. But I still think Israel seems to try and do a lot to exist with their neighbors, and clearly there is a lot that still needs to be done on both sides in order to live more in peace. But I'm not sure how much Israel can do though if some of the people they are trying to co-exist with don't want to recognize the right of Israel to exist (just as the Palestinians would have trouble dealing with Israelis who don't want to recognize the right of the Palestinians to have their own state). I know there's a lot of reasons given (they COULD vote or accept citizenship, but they don't want to acknowledge Israel or live with Israelis or cooperate with them, for example), but I don't know exactly why this equates to trampling of rights by Israel. It seems like Israel has already done a lot, even back to the original formation of Israel and what should have been a Palestinian state back then, which was rejected, but it seems the Israelis even wanted to accept Arabs as citizens back then.

-Elektrix

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix
I see what you mean now about how the laws could be used and twisted by certain people to serve as a tool for discrimination. It seems like that fundamental issue happens in a lot of countries though..... but it seems like Israel at least has a court system that would seem to hold people accountable, as it sounds like there are specific things in place to try and prevent discrimination and provide equal opportunities for jobs, housing, etc.



The actual court system is ignored, too.

More information on settlers. Confirming everything I have raised so far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36458-2002May30?language=printer



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Avigail, the name of a collection of four mobile homes on a hilltop about 10 miles southeast of Hebron, is typical of the new thrust. Jewish settlers established Avigail on land claimed by a Palestinian family. Three weeks ago, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the army to evacuate the settlers, but nothing has been done.

Avigail is one of a small cluster of encampments in the southern West Bank that Israeli planners believe will become thriving communities. "If we don't take this land now, it will be lost to the Arabs," said Ido Beckerman, an employee in the Israeli government water department who moved to Avigail from another West Bank settlement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But in practice I thought you said a lot of Arabs choose not to run or vote, so how is that the fault of the Jewish state if more people don't vote or run for election? It's not like Israel forbids them from running or from voting.



participating in the institutions of israel is seen as legitimising the occupation of the west bank and gaza.



It's unfortunate that there are only a few seats held, but I don't know what the solution there is..... you can't force people to run and vote if they don't want to.

I'm still unsure what you mean about it not being ok to question the Jewish nature of Israel. I mean, I see that you said there is something that said a party with that platform can be dismissed or whatever, but when has this ever happened in practice? I mean, have there actually been candidates or parties who were forbidden to run because of their views? And what is meant by questioning the Jewish nature of Israel? From what you quoted above I thought it sounded like the only thing looked down upon was basically saying there didn't deserve to be a homeland for the Jewish people, or something along those lines. Or is there more to it?

Anyway, thanks at least for the answers to my questions, and it does help at least clear up some of these questions for me, although I still think the issues Israel struggles with are not all that different from what many countries have to deal with, especially when it comes to individuals twisting laws and regulations to go beyond what their purpose is for nefarious reasons. But I still think Israel seems to try and do a lot to exist with their neighbors, and clearly there is a lot that still needs to be done on both sides in order to live more in peace. But I'm not sure how much Israel can do though if some of the people they are trying to co-exist with don't want to recognize the right of Israel to exist (just as the Palestinians would have trouble dealing with Israelis who don't want to recognize the right of the Palestinians to have their own state). I know there's a lot of reasons given (they COULD vote or accept citizenship, but they don't want to acknowledge Israel or live with Israelis or cooperate with them, for example), but I don't know exactly why this equates to trampling of rights by Israel. It seems like Israel has already done a lot, even back to the original formation of Israel and what should have been a Palestinian state back then, which was rejected, but it seems the Israelis even wanted to accept Arabs as citizens back then.

-Elektrix

There are claims that the refugee problem was caused by a large 'ethnic cleansing'. Israel claims they fled of their own accord. Given that many people flee war, it does not seem a legitimate reason to take someones property from them.

Should Israel have been created. The Jews deserved some sort of consideration for the suffering of WWII, and Germany has paid some compensation. But, did that mean the Palestinians then don't matter? Given that they were not responsible for any of the suffering of the Jews, they were then asked to pay for it.

[Elektrix]

aup, who said the Palestinians didn't matter..... some of them clearly chose not to accept the Palestinian state that should have been created early, and sided with the Arab nations which attacked Israel. I don't think Israel forced the Palestinians to flee, and Israel didn't ask for a war to start, so I don't see why it's Israel's fault that some Palestinians fled Israel in the hopes that Israel would be destroyed and they'd just return and have the entire nation to themselves.

Are you saying it is Israel's fault that the Palestinian state alongside Israel was rejected? Was it Israel's fault that they were attacked when the country was formed? It seems though that even after all that they still offered citizenship to the Palestinians who chose to stay.

-Elektrix

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Many palestinians have accepted the existence of Israel.
What percentage?

They won't, however, accept the right of Israel to occupy what is left of Palestine, which appears to be fair enough. And they won't co-operate with Israel in it's occupation.

Israel's argument, as I understand it, is that the occupation is a police action. If the Palestinian Authority remains unable control the suicide bombers, then Israel will take control of the areas which appear to support the intifada.

I have heard that if the suicide bombings were to stop for a significant period of time, Israel would consider withdrawing its forces.

This appears to be a rational argument to me. I don't doubt that innocent Palestinians are sometimes mistreated by the occupation forces. Those innocents ought to have some means of compensation for their injuries. But many who are injured are not innocent. The 70% of Palestinians who support the "martyrs," even if only in words and not deeds, are not innocent.

a point i have made before, there aren't jews knocking down houses with bulldozers anywhere near where I live.

In the U.S., it often happens that civil projects impose upon innocent civilians. A city planning board may decide to widen a road, and will tear down a number of homes as a consequence. People are forced to move, though they many have no interest in moving. Of course, these people are compensated for their inconvenience in some manner.

I've never heard of someone blowing himself up as a consequence of such a forced move.

Certainly, there's more going on in Palestine that mere property rights. But many of those other issues involve ridiculous, irrational, outdated, racist, religious beliefs--on both sides of the debate.

I'm more sympathetic to the Israeli side of the debate, because most Israelis embrace secular ideals, whereas most Palestinians embrace Islamic ideals. Secularism provides a hope for peace. Islam provides no peace.

now you are mixing two different trains of thought again. why should they accept Isreali citizenship? Maybe they don't want to.

Their basis for rejection of citizenship is important. Is it based upon a desire to form a secular Palestinian state, a state which will attempt to treat all persons equally, no matter their race, religion, or sex? Fine. Is their rejection based upon Islamic hatred of "Jewish" political authority? Not fine.

and like the catholics, they will just do what makes sense anyway.

The explicit articles of faith or statement of purpose of any organization is of vital importance in understanding that organization, and in passing judgment upon that organization.

Just watch what happens when the Shi'ites in Iraq become "liberated" from Sunni control. These people will fight each other over their articles of faith. You can count on it.

The beliefs matter. They really do. Bloody Christian battles have been fought over a few words in the liturgy. All the hundreds of Christian denominations exist because of doctrinal differences.

have you any evidence of this? i would have thought the rise in fundamentalism is that it fought back and got results.

In Islam, when the ***** hits the fan, if you don't get right with Allah, the zealots threaten you with bodily harm. This provokes the hypocritical masses to straighten up and start doing their prayers five times per day as required. The potential Salman Rushdies of the Muslim world who might favor secularism keep a low profile during the jihad days.

Go read the fatwa bank at Islam Online for some recent rulings regarding things like, "Is it permissible for a food service worker to sell food to an American serviceman?"

so perhaps the US should not have indulged it's own imperialistic whims and not backed the Shah in Iran who suppressed all liberal thought.

Yes, all evil in the world today is due to past U.S. foreign policy blunders. Can we get past this now and talk about the future, where to go from here?

since all faiths are based on values, not facts, they cannot be anything but relative. and that also means they are constantly in a state of flux, dependining on how they are interpreted

You seem to want some excuse to avoid looking at the explicit teachings of Islam. You continue to claim that the teachings themselves are irrelevant. You say, people will do what seems "sensible," regardless of the teachings of any church or mosque.

Again I say, although various religious groups do offer some wiggle room regarding creed and practice, there is strong evidence that doctrine has a major effect upon behavior.

they aren't capable of standing up for themselves? Taking the paternalistic role has as much danger of producing a backlash of 'don't tell me how to live'. Education is much more.

I'm not sure I follow you. People tell other people how to live, to a certain degree, all the time. If I say, I'm not in favor of any political movement which advocates for the political oppresson of others on the basis of race, religion, or sex, I'm being a little preachy, but not "paternalistic."

What sort of education do you have in mind?

If you read that link, it is also saying, as I have said before, that much of the 'Islamic' customs are in fact tribal customs that have been 'merged' into Isalm.

That's true. In those circumstances, it should be easy to round up a consensus of Islamic scholars able to state how the practice is not based upon Islamic law. Thus, people can be reassured that they are not guilty of sin if they reject the cultural practice. This, combined with education regarding the harm associated with the practice, ought to support evolution away from the practice.

The specific Islamic doctrines that I believe are a major problem in allowing a liberal, secular movement to gain ground in the Islamic world are:
1. the doctrine imposing the death penalty upon apostates
2. the doctrine imposing the death penalty for bid'ah, or innovation

The liberation of Palestine was not an 'islamic' movement, but a nationalist one. It has been appropriated to a certain extent by extemist opportunists.

The nationalistic identity includes the Arab and the Islamic identities. Secularists ought to reject the notion of an "Arab" identity, just as the world once rejected a notion of an "Aryan" identity.

The land in question is pretty low quality desert stuff. It's Jerusalem that makes the Arab world completely crazy over Palestine, cuz that's where Mohammed went one night on a flying horse.

Bah!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix
aup, who said the Palestinians didn't matter..... some of them clearly chose not to accept the Palestinian state that should have been created early, and sided with the Arab nations which attacked Israel. I don't think Israel forced the Palestinians to flee, and Israel didn't ask for a war to start, so I don't see why it's Israel's fault that some Palestinians fled Israel in the hopes that Israel would be destroyed and they'd just return and have the entire nation to themselves.



well, there is some conjecture about that. Why exactly did they flee? Some say the reason you have given, others that they were forced by the Isreali's to leave, others that they were just running from a war, which is a pretty obvious explanation. People tend to do that.



Are you saying it is Israel's fault that the Palestinian state alongside Israel was rejected? Was it Israel's fault that they were attacked when the country was formed? It seems though that even after all that they still offered citizenship to the Palestinians who chose to stay.

-Elektrix

The rejection of the Palestinian state is another debateable point. Palestinians have claimed that what was being offered was not a viable state. Israel would have still had many settlements there, which appear to be a major sticking point with the palestinians. How can you have a state, when someone else is living there under their own terms and laws? Also, the 'state' would have been like a collection of areas, not a contiguous area of land, divided by roads and settlements.

It is interesting that while the negotiations have been occurring, the planning for and setting up of settlements has never stopped. Many Israelis don't care for the settlements, but there is a small and determined minority that have pressed on relentlessly with them. Some, such as Sharon, I think anyway, see them as a strategic resource, once created, the land is Isreals and cannot be taken away. Others are just religious fanatics who believe they are living 3,000 years in the past, and that if anything bad happens to them as a result of the living in the settlements, it is because they have offended god in some way. Yet others are there for economic reasons. They are offered subsidised housing to move to settlements. Some are even there for quite bizarre reasons. Ethiopians who are brought in just to help boost the numbers.
Israel cannot lose with it's current strategy. If the Palestinians do not fight back, settlements are put up continuously, each time taking Palestinian land, either land that is strategically located or land that is the best farming land. If they do fight back, they are terrorists, and then get more land taken off them for security reasons. Either way, they lose every time.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


This is absurd.

Parliamentary Democracy, the concept of human rights, liberté,
egalité et fraternite' were all created in opposition to conservative religous and monarchist forces.

Conservatism has its merits but by definition innovation is not usually one of them!


Dear God!!!!! What anything of the things you mentioned above, like monarchy, has to do with Conservatism?????

The Conservative Right of Europe -even in terms of seats in the European Parliament- is consisted by the christian democrats and the liberals.

If you don't believe me, ask Google!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway
I think the bias against the Arabs in Israel is wrong in principle, but I think it’s understandable, in the same way that Arabs are singled out for special searches at airports in the U.S. The Palestinians, for the most part, have openly rejected the right for the state of Israel to exist. In a poll done not long ago, 70% of Palestinians living in the occupied territories supported continuing the suicide bombings. Thus, I can’t blame Israeli Jews for fearing the Israeli Arabs.



Dr.Benway

I will refer to this post of yours but I cut it for economy.

I know Irsael by first hand, not by google or by some abstract press articles or worse not by watching TV sitting on my comfortable arm chair...

Israel cannot boast for its Democracy. It has many Laws who descriminate the Arab population, some of these Laws resemble to the aparheit...

This is the truth and if we want to improve our lives we must not deny the truth.

On the other hand, Israel is a new-born state. It's only 55 years old and there wasn't a single year without War.

Even the Google experts will agree that Democracy needs Peace to flourish! You can't expect people who live under terror to behave democratically.

The reason I resent so much the leftist approach on this matter , is not because they are pro-Palestinian.
They are not pro-Palestinian because they know nothing about them.

You, Earthborn, you Google expert, name a Palestinian Poet. Name a Palestinian Author.Name a book of Palestinian litterature you have read.... Tell me which is the most important city in Palestine. What distinguishes them with the rest of the Arab world. Who is the most famous Palestinian doctor?

You. Mr. Unique, name a Palestinian Columnists in a paper of high circulation. Name just one!!!!! Name a book of a Palestinian analyst you have read. Name just once.
Which is the name of the family who will succeed President Arafat? What is the name of Arafat's assistant?
Which Jew is member of President's Arafat private board???

What the Hell you know? How dare you make such comments for a country you have such a UNIQUE ignorance.

And to return to the original thought. The reason I despise the left hypocricy is because leftists don't really care about democracy. if they did care they wouldn't make such cheap critism against Israel ( " They don't allow secular marriage" My foot!!! Who cares???? People die on the streets and you care about secular marriage? )

Leftists don't have anything to suggest because if they did, they'd have to join the conservatives.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Dr.Benway

I will refer to this post of yours but I cut it for economy.

I know Irsael by first hand, not by google or by some abstract press articles or worse not by watching TV sitting on my comfortable arm chair...



I do watch the simpsons, does that mean I don't know anything?



Israel cannot boast for its Democracy. It has many Laws who descriminate the Arab population, some of these Laws resemble to the aparheit...



I have been told this, can you provide some references.



This is the truth and if we want to improve our lives we must not deny the truth.

On the other hand, Israel is a new-born state. It's only 55 years old and there wasn't a single year without War.

Even the Google experts will agree that Democracy needs Peace to flourish! You can't expect people who live under terror to behave democratically.



Does that also count for Palestinians living under about 30 years of military occupation?



The reason I resent so much the leftist approach on this matter , is not because they are pro-Palestinian.
They are not pro-Palestinian because they know nothing about them.

You, Earthborn, you Google expert, name a Palestinian Poet. Name a Palestinian Author.Name a book of Palestinian litterature you have read.... Tell me which is the most important city in Palestine. What distinguishes them with the rest of the Arab world. Who is the most famous Palestinian doctor?

You. Mr. Unique, name a Palestinian Columnists in a paper of high circulation. Name just one!!!!! Name a book of a Palestinian analyst you have read. Name just once.
Which is the name of the family who will succeed President Arafat? What is the name of Arafat's assistant?
Which Jew is member of President's Arafat private board???



Said?
"The Palestine-Israeli Conflict" Dan Cohn-sherbork, Dawoud el-alami. One World, 2001.
"Palestine Dawn", damm, can't find it, but it's there somewhere.

Ahhh, now I was reading about a Prime Minister in the paper just the other day, I don't believe that Arafat is going to give up the presidency. What appears to be happening is that the Prime Minister will have the real power, and the President will be more of a ceremonial position. At least, that is what is intended, who knows if it will happen.
Arafat's assistant? Hmmm.
Jew on his board? Hmmm. Intersting, I had read that Arafat has tried to get to a position of peace, and has given up hating the jews. Now tell me, please, is this real, or, as others claim, is he really just out to kill all the jews, but says nice things just to deceive us all.



What the Hell you know? How dare you make such comments for a country you have such a UNIQUE ignorance.

And to return to the original thought. The reason I despise the left hypocricy is because leftists don't really care about democracy. if they did care they wouldn't make such cheap critism against Israel ( " They don't allow secular marriage" My foot!!! Who cares???? People die on the streets and you care about secular marriage? )



If you cannot do something simple, how can you do something more complex? Why do the dynamics of Israeli politics prevent such a simple thing from happening? If they cannot do a simple thing, how can they do a complex thing? And it is related. The religious extremists insist on asserting their influence as much as possible. This is one example. Settlements, another....



Leftists don't have anything to suggest because if they did, they'd have to join the conservatives.

Hmmm...... no, I don't think so.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you cannot do something simple, how can you do something more complex? Why do the dynamics of Israeli politics prevent such a simple thing from happening?

OMG, I'm actually finding myself in agreement with aup!

Yeah, I think *symbols* of second-class citizenship mean a lot. The civil rights movement in the U.S. really got off the ground when a black woman decided to sit toward the front end of a bus.

Even in a war zone, the little things that express respect and caring go a long way.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Does that also count for Palestinians living under about 30 years of military occupation?
I had dinner with a colleage from Egypt recently. We talked about violence and childhood conduct disorders. He said that in the Gaza population, there is an overwhelming problem of antisocial behavior among the children and adolescents. This is very sad, if his report is accurate, because the best predictor of adult violent behavior is the presence of violent behavior in childhood.

It doesn't help the problem, when the surrounding culture glorifies suicide bombers.

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The rejection of the Palestinian state is another debateable point. Palestinians have claimed that what was being offered was not a viable state. Israel would have still had many settlements there, which appear to be a major sticking point with the palestinians. How can you have a state, when someone else is living there under their own terms and laws? Also, the 'state' would have been like a collection of areas, not a contiguous area of land, divided by roads and settlements.

It is interesting that while the negotiations have been occurring, the planning for and setting up of settlements has never stopped. Many Israelis don't care for the settlements, but there is a small and determined minority that have pressed on relentlessly with them. Some, such as Sharon, I think anyway, see them as a strategic resource, once created, the land is Isreals and cannot be taken away. Others are just religious fanatics who believe they are living 3,000 years in the past, and that if anything bad happens to them as a result of the living in the settlements, it is because they have offended god in some way. Yet others are there for economic reasons. They are offered subsidised housing to move to settlements. Some are even there for quite bizarre reasons. Ethiopians who are brought in just to help boost the numbers.
Israel cannot lose with it's current strategy. If the Palestinians do not fight back, settlements are put up continuously, each time taking Palestinian land, either land that is strategically located or land that is the best farming land. If they do fight back, they are terrorists, and then get more land taken off them for security reasons. Either way, they lose every time.

AUP, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the recent rejection of a Palestinian state. I was talking about the one in 1948, the rejection of the original Palestinian state that was supposed to be formed alongside Israel. I was asking why it is Israel's fault or responsibility that instead of accepting that, war was declared on Israel in the hopes that Israel would be wiped out and there would be no Jewish state at all.

And I'll ask again, why is it Israel's fault that war was declared on them? Same thing with the whole issue of the "occupied territories"..... a lot of people agree they should be given back, but I don't understand why it's Israel's fault entirely that these territories are occupied. If Israel's neighbors could have simple accepted their existence instead of attacking them, there never would have been an opportunity or a desire to take control of and occupy land to protect themselves.

So again, don't Israel's neighbors bear some responsibility for their desire to see Israel destroyed entirely, their manipulation of the Palestinians for this cause, and the current climate in Israel that certainly affects the decisions that are made because of the attacks in the past?

-Elektrix

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I do watch the simpsons, does that mean I don't know anything?

Two out of three of the threads you post include, in their subject, the word Israel. You seem-I might be wrong-obsessed with this country. The least I expect by someone so interested in Israel, is to know absolutely everything about it.

I have been told this, can you provide some references.

:) What do you suggest? All these accusations from your part in the various threads were with no evidence?

Does that also count for Palestinians living under about 30 years of military occupation?

Yes it does but try to understand what I am saying. The suicide bombers are damaging primarily the Palestinian not the Israeli side.

Ahhh, now I was reading about a Prime Minister in the paper just the other day, I don't believe that Arafat is going to give up the presidency.

Did you happen to notice how this Prime Minister will take the seat? Why haven't you started a thread on how Palestinian PMs are NOT elected?
That's why I am suggesting that you, leftists don't help Palestinians at all.

What appears to be happening is that the Prime Minister will have the real power, and the President will be more of a ceremonial position. At least, that is what is intended, who knows if it will happen.

I wouldn't be fair if I expected them to have a clear idea on what State they want. First they need a country and then a political system.

Now tell me, please, is this real, or, as others claim, is he really just out to kill all the jews, but says nice things just to deceive us all.

I don't respect very much President Arafat because I think that he has betrayed his people. I don't believe a word he says but I am biased.

If you cannot do something simple, how can you do something more complex? Why do the dynamics of Israeli politics prevent such a simple thing from happening? If they cannot do a simple thing, how can they do a complex thing? And it is related. The religious extremists insist on asserting their influence as much as possible. This is one example. Settlements, another....

In Law School, first they teach you the Legal System of the Romans, then of Byzantine Empire. You need almost a year to start learning about modern legal systems...Education needs time.
I wish it could be done that way but it can't. Religious extremists are the worse enemy of Israel right now but without them... nahhh I will leave that for another post...you will find my opinion on what should be done ...unique!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I had dinner with a colleage from Egypt recently. We talked about violence and childhood conduct disorders. He said that in the Gaza population, there is an overwhelming problem of antisocial behavior among the children and adolescents. This is very sad, if his report is accurate, because the best predictor of adult violent behavior is the presence of violent behavior in childhood.

It doesn't help the problem, when the surrounding culture glorifies suicide bombers.

It's not only the surrounding culture. I hope they don't read Mr.Unique's posts...

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra.
All these were arguing the essence of Stalinism, whether the evolution should be perpetual or not( BS!!!
Actually they were arguing the essence of Leninism. The differences weren't about a representative parliament or allowing other political parties, but about how the Party should operate in society. Trotsky was all for the Soviets, Stalin was all for absolute centralism (the Catholic upbringing, perhaps). Neither argued against the leading role of the Party, but that's Leninism. (As I remember from my days of hanging out with Trotskyists and Officials.) It was Leninism that the EuroComs broke with.

What are you talking about? About variations on the same tune???
Well yes, but I think the theme was Leninism, not Stalinism.

[CapelDodger]

From EleKtrix:AUP, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the recent rejection of a Palestinian state. I was talking about the one in 1948, the rejection of the original Palestinian state that was supposed to be formed alongside Israel
I hadn't heard about that. Do you have any references to this? My understanding was that the UN Resolution (which, admittedly, Israel didn't accept) partitioning Palestine provided for 55% of the land area to go to Israel, most of the rest to Jordan and Egypt (Gaza) and Jerusalem to be an internationally administered city. Israel actually took 78%, then the rest in 1967.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


It's not only the surrounding culture. I hope they don't read Mr.Unique's posts...

I hardly think I am going to be out there encouraging violence.

The culture in the occupied territories is breaking down. I would call this a process of genocide, and exactly what the Isreali conservatives are after. Once the culture breaks down, the genocide is nearly complete.

Whose fault is it? Well, I would hazard that those years of occupation by a military force would have a lot to do with it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I had dinner with a colleage from Egypt recently. We talked about violence and childhood conduct disorders. He said that in the Gaza population, there is an overwhelming problem of antisocial behavior among the children and adolescents. This is very sad, if his report is accurate, because the best predictor of adult violent behavior is the presence of violent behavior in childhood.

It doesn't help the problem, when the surrounding culture glorifies suicide bombers.

You have to ask yourself what is life like for the palestinians, ordinary, everyday, life. From what I have read, it is hell. The breakdown of culture and society under these conditions is inevitable.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
On the other hand, Israel is a new-born state. It's only 55 years old and there wasn't a single year without War.
Even the Google experts will agree that Democracy needs Peace to flourish! You can't expect people who live under terror to behave democratically.
But nobody should have expected anything different. The creation of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state in an area with a non-Jewish majority was always going to lead to conflict, and a conflict that can hardly be won by Israel. Even if the West Bank and Gazan Arabs are all expelled, Israel will still be subject to at least sporadic attacks and will be resented by the countries around them, so democracy will still be impossible. Israel is almost designed to be a country perpetually at war - which, to some nationalists, is a good thing for a nation. Strengthens the sinews, weeds out the bad blood, that kind of thing. The Israeli position is, in effect, 'We'd like to be democratic, but we're carving a colony out of a hostile coast, so that will have to wait."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Two out of three of the threads you post include, in their subject, the word Israel. You seem-I might be wrong-obsessed with this country. The least I expect by someone so interested in Israel, is to know absolutely everything about it.



Because it is involved in so much of what is wrong with the world these days. Not all because of it's own actions, but if the issue of Palestine as a state could be solved, a lot of other problems would not be able to feed off it and use it as a justification for other things that are happening.

Also, when I joined the forum, the pro-Israeli topics appeared to be pretty much the standard. I was just trying to balance out the blatant ant-Palestinian stance.

The idea that Israel is just a modern state like the USA who gets all these terrible things done to it for no good reason is ludicrous.

For a start, Israel has it's faults, and the 'We are like you' refrain is so much humbug. If Israel is like other Democracies, then it has it's faults already. Apart from that, most Democracies do are not in the process of genocide. And the 'we are like you, not like them', refrain is blatant racism and bigotry.




:) What do you suggest? All these accusations from your part in the various threads were with no evidence?



As I said before, I have provided plenty of evidence, but it is a lot of work to keep referring back to it again and again. I do not have the time. If there is something specific, please ask.



Yes it does but try to understand what I am saying. The suicide bombers are damaging primarily the Palestinian not the Israeli side.



You know that, and I know that. They just keep popping up, though, don't they. Now, given that they aren't going away, why is that so? Is it something to do with Isreal? Palestine? Extremists? Just demonising Palestinians, which is what the Israeli government does, serves only to legitimise such acts as building more settlements, demolishing houses, (and there are plenty more houses demolished than just those that were the ones where the bombers lived).



Did you happen to notice how this Prime Minister will take the seat? Why haven't you started a thread on how Palestinian PMs are NOT elected?
That's why I am suggesting that you, leftists don't help Palestinians at all.



well, I haven't noticed any palestinians on this board. if there were, maybe we could talk about those points. As it is, for me to be typing away here is hardly a factor in the advance or not of the Palestinian state.



I wouldn't be fair if I expected them to have a clear idea on what State they want. First they need a country and then a political system.



I don't respect very much President Arafat because I think that he has betrayed his people. I don't believe a word he says but I am biased.



I would place arafat and sharon at about the same level as trust and usefulness for their people. Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil, though.

However, I did read that he has tried to model himself on Mandela and Gandhi, only too many of his people were too p**d off with trying peaceful methods to make it work. That is, they didn't believe that non violence brought results. And non violence has been tried, many times. Did it work? Apparently not.



In Law School, first they teach you the Legal System of the Romans, then of Byzantine Empire. You need almost a year to start learning about modern legal systems...Education needs time.
I wish it could be done that way but it can't. Religious extremists are the worse enemy of Israel right now but without them... nahhh I will leave that for another post...you will find my opinion on what should be done ...unique!

I agree with you about the religious extremists. They are the worse enemy of Palestinians and Israelis. They do not care about people and life, only about god and the next life. They cannot react logically to the world.

When there was an incursion into a settlement by gunmen who killed some settlers, they reported a comment by one of the survivors. It was words to the effect of "We must have done something to offend god, that was why he let these people in here. we will have to try harder to be good in gods eyes, and then he will protect us better". Now, how is a sensible resolution to the problem going to occur when people think like that?

Which is the really crazy part. Most Israelis don't give a damm for the settlements, and would be happy to see them removed. That, I believe, would be a major resolution of the problem.

How is it that such a small number of religious extremists cause so much trouble? For the sake of so few, the whole world is put at risk of major tragedy.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Dear God!!!!! What anything of the things you mentioned above, like monarchy, has to do with Conservatism?????

The Conservative Right of Europe -even in terms of seats in the European Parliament- is consisted by the christian democrats and the liberals.

If you don't believe me, ask Google!



In your original post you stated and I quoted it in my post......
......."Yes, you see, the conservatives in Europe ............ created History. Everything that is worth mentioning in the History of this bloody continent, has been created by the conservatives. Even your right to speak-up was won by the conservatives for your sake"............

I repeat, this is absurd.

How did the conservatives create history?

The conflict between those with power and those without has a long history and by their very nature conservatives were on the side of the established order. Conservatives typically oppose the creation of new political "rights"....until it is expedient to support them.


You might usefully consider the origins of the terms left and right wing, not to mention Conservative . You might usefully wonder about the significance of the British Bill of Rights 1688, the French Revolution or the 1848 revolutions and whether they had much to do with conservatism.

Finally you might bear in mind that when you suggest using a search engine to search for proper names, such as Eurocommunist leaders, as you did, it is a good idea to spell them correctly first



:p

[Nikk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I would place arafat and sharon at about the same level as trust and usefulness for their people. Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil, though.

........Yes, trying to distinguish between them is "like arguing a point of precedence between a louse and a flea."


However, I did read that he has tried to model himself on Mandela and Gandhi, only too many of his people were too p**d off with trying peaceful methods to make it work. That is, they didn't believe that non violence brought results. And non violence has been tried, many times. Did it work? Apparently not.



.......Interestingly Gandhi expressed understanding for violent Palestinian resistance in the 1930's.

Of course non violent resistance in India only stood a chance because the colony needed the consent of the governed to function. The idea of the Zionists in Palestine was to create a settlement colony and "ethnicly cleanse" the Palestinians. Its the fact that they are so morally self righteous about it that is outstandingly objectionable.

"How dare the Palestinians try and resist colonisation" seems to be the common attitude.




:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would place arafat and sharon at about the same level as trust and usefulness for their people. Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil, though.

Could you clarify this.... what do you mean when you say Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil as Ariel Sharon?

Also, you said that Israel is responsible for genocide. That implies they are trying to exterminate the entire Palestinian people. Can you explain this?

-Freakzilla

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Elektrix


Could you clarify this.... what do you mean when you say Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil as Ariel Sharon?

Also, you said that Israel is responsible for genocide. That implies they are trying to exterminate the entire Palestinian people. Can you explain this?

-Freakzilla

Just for information.


The UN convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( entered into force 1951 I think ) states in art. 2, 3 and 4

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group._

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:


(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide._

Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. "

.................................................. ...............
So you see it's not just mass extermination. There is obviously room for argument on the issue of Israel's responsibility though.

[crackmonkey]

It sounds like Arab nations would be more culpable of that definition of genocide than the Israelis... most Israelis want peaceful coexistence. Most Arabs adamantly don't.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It sounds like Arab nations would be more culpable of that definition of genocide than the Israelis... most Israelis want peaceful coexistence. Most Arabs adamantly don't.

A peace plan presented by the saudis and other arab nations was more or less totally ignored, because it involved giving back the west bank to palestine.

As for what most arabs think, maybe you could prove it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nikk


Just for information.


The UN convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( entered into force 1951 I think ) states in art. 2, 3 and 4

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group._

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:


(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide._

Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. "

.................................................. ...............
So you see it's not just mass extermination. There is obviously room for argument on the issue of Israel's responsibility though.

thanks nikk, just what i was getting at. Israel knows it cannot get away with a blatant ethnic cleansing. So it slowly strangles the palestinian culture and population.

Permits to build a house are almost impossible to get.
The towns of the west bank are being encirlced by 'settlements'.
The free passage and communication between the towns is massively reduced, with road blocks, road closures.
Constant curfews are introduced, in which people are not permitted to leave their houses.
Water is severly rationed.
The best land is taken for settlements.

All this combines to make for a life that has no hope for a better future.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Hi Cleopatra.

Actually they were arguing the essence of Leninism. The differences weren't about a representative parliament or allowing other political parties, but about how the Party should operate in society. Trotsky was all for the Soviets, Stalin was all for absolute centralism (the Catholic upbringing, perhaps). Neither argued against the leading role of the Party, but that's Leninism. (As I remember from my days of hanging out with Trotskyists and Officials.) It was Leninism that the EuroComs broke with.

Well yes, but I think the theme was Leninism, not Stalinism.

Yes, of course, you are right.I stand corrected on that but it doesn't change the essence of my argument.

I will reply here to both of your posts.

But nobody should have expected anything different. The creation of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state in an area with a non-Jewish majority was always going to lead to conflict, and a conflict that can hardly be won by Israel. Even if the West Bank and Gazan Arabs are all expelled, Israel will still be subject to at least sporadic attacks and will be resented by the countries around them, so democracy will still be impossible. Israel is almost designed to be a country perpetually at war - which, to some nationalists, is a good thing for a nation. Strengthens the sinews, weeds out the bad blood, that kind of thing. The Israeli position is, in effect, 'We'd like to be democratic, but we're carving a colony out of a hostile coast, so that will have to wait."

Just for the sake of a fair discussion, I will ignore the... insinuation in your post and I will deal with its essence.

Yes, I agree, although I come to the same conclusion via a different path...

Jews were used and they were sent to the "Promised Land" to play the cops of the West in Middle East.

As everybody knows, Israel gets the biggest piece of the pie of financial aid of USA to other countries.

It would cost more to the States to keep things in order in Middle east, so they sent Jews to take care of the Arabs.And not only that. They have turned Israel into a Jewish Disneyland where Jews from all over the world go visit.

This is a nice way to secure illusions...

This is the painful truth. Jews were used in exactly the same way Palestinians were used by the Arabs.

It might appear -for the moment- that they have the upper hand but on the long run you will remember my words.

If I ever decided to create a political party in Israel, I would try to persuade my compatriots to leave the country.

I am talking seriously.

This is what the West deserves. An Arabic Middle East. I pray to have to the opportunity, in this life time, to see this. I would like to see an arabic middle east and all those who accuse Israelis of various stupidities, having to deal with the Arabs.You don't know Arabs, I pray you will have the opportunity to know them by first hand.

People try to get educated to make their lives better not worse, none dreams of being a soldier for his whole life but this is what Israelis do.

Of course none listens now, none in the rest of the World cares, and the tragedy is waiting for us around the corner...

...and yet she votes for the Christian-democrats

[crackmonkey]

The Saudi plan was a mere shell. There was never any substance to it, just an assertion that the Arab nations would respect Israel's existence if Israel fulfilled certain stated conditions. No details were provided, no discussions betwen parties. I believe Thomas Friedman talked about this at some length.
You doubt that most Arabs want to eliminate the state of Israel? Seriously?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Jews were used and they were sent to the "Promised Land" to play the cops of the West in Middle East.

As everybody knows, Israel gets the biggest piece of the pie of financial aid of USA to other countries.

It would cost more to the States to keep things in order in Middle east, so they sent Jews to take care of the Arabs.And not only that. They have turned Israel into a Jewish Disneyland where Jews from all over the world go visit.

This is a nice way to secure illusions...

This is the painful truth. Jews were used in exactly the same way Palestinians were used by the Arabs.

It might appear -for the moment- that they have the upper hand but on the long run you will remember my words.

If I ever decided to create a political party in Israel, I would try to persuade my compatriots to leave the country.

I am talking seriously.

This is what the West deserves. An Arabic Middle East. I pray to have to the opportunity, in this life time, to see this. I would like to see an arabic middle east and all those who accuse Israelis of various stupidities, having to deal with the Arabs.You don't know Arabs, I pray you will have the opportunity to know them by first hand.

People try to get educated to make their lives better not worse, none dreams of being a soldier for his whole life but this is what Israelis do.

Of course none listens now, none in the rest of the World cares, and the tragedy is waiting for us around the corner...

...and yet she votes for the Christian-democrats

On the other hand Zionism originated in the 19th century and was a creation of Jewish culture and religion. People in the UK and the US whose civil rights were respected chose to follow the call to create a new promised land or to support it financially well before Hitler came to power.

But I agree with you that the British after WW1 saw jewish settlement as a way of reinforcing control in the near east and the same idea occured to US post WW2. Especially as arab nationalism had a distinctly socialist flavour.

So we may agree on some things;)

I think you are perhaps too pessimistic about the arabs/muslims. In "fundamentalist" Iran a survey a few months ago showed a majority of people to be pro the US and many sympathised with US policy to Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2294509.stm

OK the mullahs arrested the pollsters :rolleyes: but there is the potential for change.

If only your compatriots could stop kicking the sxxx out of the Palestinians, make an unequivocal commitment to leave the west bank completely, turn Jerusalem into an international city etc, then we all might see some positive progress. Maybe one day all these pocket handkerchief states will join the EU! aaaaaarrrrrrrggggh.:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The Saudi plan was a mere shell. There was never any substance to it, just an assertion that the Arab nations would respect Israel's existence if Israel fulfilled certain stated conditions. No details were provided, no discussions betwen parties. I believe Thomas Friedman talked about this at some length.
You doubt that most Arabs want to eliminate the state of Israel? Seriously?

How do all plans start? I have an idea, what do you think about it? The US and Israel treated it with a deafening silence.

I have no doubt that some arabs want to eliminate Israel, as for most arabs......

Put it this way, I have no doubt that some Israelis want the West Bank and Gaza taken over by Israel and Palestine totally eliminated.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Nikk


If only your compatriots could stop kicking the sxxx out of the Palestinians, make an unequivocal commitment to leave the west bank completely, turn Jerusalem into an international city etc, then we all might see some positive progress. Maybe one day all these pocket handkerchief states will join the EU! aaaaaarrrrrrrggggh.:D

That isn't going to happen. Sharon an friends have been planning the takeover for years. Settlements are strategically placed, in the most absurd places sometimes, to encircle and isolate Palestinian towns. Step by step, as Cleopatra has said previously.

Much water, the source of the Israelis 'miracle' is taken from the West Bank aquifiers. Without the water taken from there, the miracle will be shown to be the mirage it really is. Israel will still have enough water for a comfortable life, but the excess that is used for display will have to disappear.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix


Could you clarify this.... what do you mean when you say Arafat has not been responsible for as much evil as Ariel Sharon?

Also, you said that Israel is responsible for genocide. That implies they are trying to exterminate the entire Palestinian people. Can you explain this?

-Freakzilla

I can still remember that picture of sharon walking up to the temple mount with that big grin on his face, anticipating the deaths of thousands. he knew he was provoking the palestinians.

As for his desire to take over the west bank and not ever really offer anything to the palestinians, that is also documented.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sharon Orders Launching 3 New Desert Settlements: Official
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered officials to begin planning three new settlements in the Halutza Dunes area of the Western Negev desert in southern Israel, in an effort to foil any future attempt to cede the area to Palestinian control, Army Radio reported Monday.

During the administration of Sharon's predecessor Ehud Barak, Israeli and Palestinian officials raised the possibility of trading the unpopulated dunes area to Palestinian control under a deal that would thus allow more Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories to remain in place.

Shmulik Hitman, head of Ramat Hanegev Regional Council in southern Israel, told the radio that under plans being formulated, 20,000 Israelis would live in the Halutza bloc by 2010.

Barak had vowed to keep 80 percent of Jewish settlements under Israeli sovereignty while indicating willingness to evacuate small and scattered ones.

However, Sharon, who took power two months ago, has said that he has no intention whatsoever of evacuating any settlements from the Palestinian land.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200...0507_69377.html

yes, it is the people's daily, but i think that facts are not in dispute.

http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/uavnery2.htm


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If Ariel Sharon were to formulate his intentions as a military operations order, like he used to do in the army, instead of hiding them behind a host of smoke screens, it would look like this:

1. Aims
To bring the Zionist Revolution to its conclusion, by turning all of Eretz-Israel, from the sea to the Jordan river, into a Jewish state, with a minimum of non-Jewish inhabitants (if any at all).

2. Information
The 1948 War of Independence [al-naqba] was broken off before achieving its aim. The State of Israel was established only on 78 per cent of the land, which brought about the removal of only 64 per cent of the Palestinians. In the 1967 Six Day War we conquered the remaining 22 per cent of the territories, but successive Israeli governments lacked the necessary willpower to conclude the Zionist revolution by annexing the territories and removing the remaining Arab population.

Now a window of opportunity has opened for concluding the job. Only one superpower (the US) remains; all the other powers (the UN, Europe, Russia and others) have in effect been eliminated.

The US is now lending us unlimited and unqualified support. It is to be hoped that it will continue to do so even when we employ harsh methods in the pursuit of our national aims. Experience shows that even when somebody in the American administration resists the implementation of our aims, this resistance collapses when faced with our determined stand (Operation "Defensive Shield"). Our control over both houses of the Congress and our decisive influence on most of the American media guarantee us freedom of action.

3. Methods
Our task will be achieved by the following methods, to be employed simultaneously:

a. Military operations, to break the armed Palestinian resistance.

b. Economic pressure, to cause mass Arab emigration from the country.

c. Settlement activity, to cut up the territories and prepare them for annexation to Israel.

d. Political action, to break the Palestinian political and social institutions.

4. Implementation
(a) Military operations: These will be conducted incessantly, without long pauses. The whole army, including the reserves, will be employed for this task, even if this necessitates a weakening of our preparedness vis-a-vis the Arab states and limiting training.

The IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] will occupy the Palestinian territories as needed, for long and short periods, in order to catch, arrest or execute all Palestinian militants who could organize resistance to our policy. For this purpose, there is no difference between terrorists and political leaders, between armed or civil resistance, between Hamas and Fatah. Maximal destruction of property will cause deterrence. This will be a repeated action, in order to eliminate every new set of leaders as it emerges.

Our actions will necessarily increase the motivation for terrorists to execute suicide bombings in Israel. These will provide us - both in the domestic and the international arenas - with reasons for our military action, which will be seen as a response.

The IDF will also assume a central role in exercising economic pressure (as follows).

It must be ensured that no officer who does not wholeheartedly support this task attains a senior position (chief of staff, officer in charge of regional commands, chief of departments, commander of divisions and brigades). For fulfilling a historic mission, hardness and cruelty are needed; there can be no place for bleeding hearts.

(b) Economic pressure: Mass expulsion, like in 1948, can be effected only in a special situation, such as a fully-fledged war or during an exceptional international event that draws away world attention.

Until this eventuality occurs, Palestinians must be induced to leave the country by economic pressure that makes their life intolerable. Such pressure will be achieved through closures and blockades that will prevent the movement of merchants and workers, teachers and pupils, doctors and patients. The whole economic life in the territories must be gradually brought to a standstill, so that the ability of the heads of families to feed their children is effectively destroyed.

IDF actions will enclose the Palestinians in small enclaves, where they will receive some kind of limited local autonomy, so as to relieve us of any formal responsibility for their situation.

In the prosecution of this policy, international public opinion and international aid agencies must be taken into account. From time to time, exceptions must be made to prevent extreme situations from arising.

(c) Settlement activity: This is a central tool for fulfilling the historic task. In spite of the fact that all Israeli governments since 1967 have understood this and acted accordingly, the tempo was slow. While more than 30 per cent of Judea and Samaria are part of the town planning areas of the settlements, hardly more than 1 per cent is actually settled. This is an intolerable scandal which must be speedily rectified. All ministries must take part in this urgent effort, devoting a considerable part of their resources to it.

Existing settlements must be enlarged and new ones set up by all possible means (takeovers after terrorist attacks, new neighbourhoods far from the existing settlements, etc.) The network of bypass roads must be expanded rapidly in order to cut off Palestinians towns and villages, to annex more land to the settlements and strengthen our control on the ground. All this must be done according to the existing strategic plan, which prevents Palestinian territorial continuity and tightens the economic blockade.

For the settlement effort, the economic resources of all ministries must be centralized and all other tasks must take second place. More people, including new immigrants, must be encouraged to join the settlements. If necessary, young couples should be offered villas at zero cost. The flight of the factories from the settlement industrial parks, following threats by the European community, must be stopped.

The IDF will devote the necessary resources to the protection of the settlements and the roads leading to them, even if this means calling up the reserves and ordering a whole battalion to protect one single isolated settlement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sorry, this was written by a jew, how could i have let that slip past?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From MIFTAH

Israeli Settlements Continue to Crush Palestinians and International Law
19 June 2002

The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH) implores the daily construction and expansion of Israeli settlements on seized Palestinian territory to end immediately for it is a vital part of Israel's concrete strategy to suppress the Palestinian people indefinitely.

The Israeli settlements that are being built daily under Ariel Sharon's hard line government are illegal for they contravene strict international law treaties. Article 49, paragraph 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons, provides that the "occupying power (Israel) shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies (Palestine)." The provisions contained in the 1907 Hague Regulations protecting public and private property in occupied territory prohibits the confiscation of land for settlement construction.

Continued illegal Israeli settlement construction and expansion is discordant with the notion of a just and lasting peace called for by the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 465. Israel's customary practice of settling parts of its population along with new immigrants constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a lasting peace in the Middle East. The Council has fruitlessly called upon Israel to "dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction of planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem."

We, the Palestinian people oppose these illegal settlements because they are in violation of legal, historic, geographic and demographic factors. Cities and villages such as east Jerusalem and Ramallah are prevented from growing in any direction due to the encroachment of the settlements. These criminal settlements disable the Palestinian ability to strive, for they stunt the growth of the Palestinian population by sucking dry the land and water that is reserved for the future state of Palestine.

Over 35 new hilltop settlements have sprung up under Ariel Sharon's government, but Israel failingly tries to convince and appease the international community by insisting that these hilltops are merely extensions of existing settlements. Sharon has over-willingly approved these hilltops at an unprecedented rate, five new hilltops on the very night he was elected. Sharon, who has a long history of supporting the expansion of settlements stands in defiance of international law by reiterating his unwillingness to uproot a single one of these illegal communities.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.pengon.org/new/new9.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Return of the warrior
Author: Ed O'Loughlin
Date: 01/02/2003
Words: 1354
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Section: News And Features
Page: 34

Despite his half-century record of aggression towards the Palestinians, many Israelis feel the re-elected Ariel Sharon is their best hope for peace. Ed O'Loughlin reports.

Like de Gaulle, they say, Sharon has somehow become a national icon in a time of crisis. This explains how his Likud party almost doubled its seats this week, despite a major influence-peddling scandal and revelations that Sharon secretly benefited from a $US1.5 million ($2.54 million) offshore ``loan". Like de Gaulle, Sharon has a formidable military record, which is how he remains a comfortingly strong father figure despite having presided over two years of Palestinian violence and terror.

Above all, some Israelis hope that, like de Gaulle, Sharon will do what nobody expected, and exploit his formidable reputation to push through concessions that would be impossible for Israel's doves.

Recalled from retirement to help the French crush the Arab colonial revolt in Algeria, de Gaulle took a long look at the situation and to the violent opposition of elements within his own armed forces brought the troops back home.

Could it be that the 74-year-old Sharon will use his new mandate to end Zionism's 80-year war with the Arabs? Or does he, as the Palestinians believe, plan to secretly pursue a cause he once championed openly, the gradual exile of all the Holy Land's remaining Arabs and the seizure of their remaining land?

The answer would seem obvious, if you could only judge by form.

In 1953 unknown Arab infiltrators murdered a Jewish woman and her two children just inside the fledgling state of Israel. General Moshe Dayan ordered a youthful major called Ariel Sharon to carry out a reprisal raid on the nearby Jordanian village of Qibya. When Sharon's ``special operations" Unit 101 withdrew, the village was in ruins and 69 civilians, two-thirds of them women and children, were dead. A UN investigator concluded the villagers had been forced by gunfire to remain in their homes, which were then blown up.

Promoted to senior rank, Sharon subsequently won a reputation for aggression, tactical flare and maverick action in the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. In the latter conflict he dramatically turned the tables in Israel's favour by driving his forces through the gap between two Egyptian armies and crossing the Suez Canal to cut them off from the rear.

It was a daring operation, but some lustre was lost to allegations from within the Israeli Defence Forces that Sharon had deliberately exceeded his orders, at the risk of his soldiers' lives. The following year Sharon quit the army to co-found the Likud (Unity) party, subsequently losing the leadership to Menachem Begin.

In 1982 most Israelis believed their army's incursion into Lebanon was intended solely to push exiled Palestinian Liberation Organisation forces out of artillery range of the Galilee. It soon transpired that Sharon, the defence minister, had more ambitious plans.

Unbeknown to most of his cabinet colleagues, Sharon had secretly been scheming to entice Lebanon's Maronite Christian minority into a new anti-Muslim alliance, destroying Syria's military influence and expelling Lebanon's Palestinian refugees into Jordan. There, they would rebel against the Jordanian royal family to form a Palestinian state outside the Holy Land. The Palestinians within the occupied West Bank and Gaza could then be forced into Jordan, clearing Eretz Israel (the biblical land of Israel) of its Arab inhabitants.

Launching the invasion, Sharon told the Israeli public and his fellow ministers that his troops would go no further than 40 kilometres into Lebanon. But they kept going, laying bloody siege to Beirut and fighting pitched battles with the Syrians in the Bekaa Valley.

It soon became clear that Sharon's grand plan for Lebanon was not just reckless but also deluded. Israel's chosen ally, Bashir Gemayel, could not dominate fractious Lebanon and was soon assassinated. The next day the Israelis occupied Muslim west Beirut and Sharon sent allied Maronite militiamen to ``clean up" the Palestinian refugee camps of Saba and Shatila.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



source - http://newsstore.f2.com.au/apps/vie...=all&rm=200&kw="unit%20101"&sy=age&pb=all_ffx&clsPage=1&st=nw&ss=AGE

you have to pay to see this, but the information is available free from other sources.

what do we see, a man who provokes terror, so he can benefit from the fear he has generated.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk

On the other hand Zionism originated in the 19th century and was a creation of Jewish culture and religion. People in the UK and the US whose civil rights were respected chose to follow the call to create a new promised land or to support it financially well before Hitler came to power.

Yes, but Jews weren't the only ones who were asking for a country. Many others have been asking for a country for centuries and didn't have the same luck... Greeks, who were living in the same place for 2000 years, had their country just because the Big Guys approved it, otherwise...we would be in the same position with the Palestinians now.

Jews were sent there to deal with the Arabs. Too bad they haven't realized this earlier.
As I mentioned in my previous posts, the state of Israel didn't turn into a good idea for the Jews...

So we may agree on some things;)

I argue seriously only with those who don't drink single malts;) I bet Mr. Unique is a beer drinker... :)

THIS was a racict comment but he won't notice...

I think you are perhaps too pessimistic about the arabs/muslims. In "fundamentalist" Iran a survey a few months ago showed a majority of people to be pro the US and many sympathised with US policy to Iran.

Hmmm. I couldn't help noticing in your profile that you practice Law... this is what I do myself when I am bored to be a Queen, so I think that you will understand the following statement.I have the pesimism of the person who has realized some facts.
Crimes are been commited in the International Affaires almost everyday.Crimes that remain unpunished and you know very well that the only thing that can destroy a society, any group of people, is the unpunished crime...

If only your compatriots could stop kicking the sxxx out of the Palestinians, make an unequivocal commitment to leave the west bank completely, turn Jerusalem into an international city etc, then we all might see some positive progress.

You see? You blame it all to the one side... Can this be possible? I will have to repeat the clichee. It takes two to tango!!
Although I don't live in Israel anymore, I wouldn't want to see Jerusalem an arabic city. What does the word International mean? Jerusalem is the spiritual centre of Jews. Christians may have the right to ask for Jerusalem but Arabs don't.

You say that you are pro a Palestinian State and before securing a land you start negotiating Jerusalem!!! How can an Israeli trust such negotiations??Do you find this reasonable? You know what negotiations mean. Do you find this a smart way to negotiate?


Maybe one day all these pocket handkerchief states will join the EU! aaaaaarrrrrrrggggh.:D

This was mean but a good one :)
Tell me, when, you dirty Brits, you will decide to leave the EU and leave us , the continentals ( you pronounce it the way you pronounce Neatherthals...:p ) alone to find our way? You can become the 52th State...of America if you wish :p

PS. I didn't reply to your previous post because I think that we need a thread to clarify some terms...

[Elektrix]

People like AUP keep on bringing up this thing with Sharon visiting the Temple Mount and that that "provocation" somehow justified the current intifada.

How exactly does that make sense? I mean, the Temple Mount is considered one of the holiest locations in the Jewish religion. What exactly does it say that the Palestinians will see a Jewish person visiting one of the holiest locations in their religion as a justification to start an uprising?

I mean, does that make any sense at all? The whole issue of these locations being taken so seriously aside, this is just one of the big things I don't get. I realize that this location is also holy to Muslims, and I note that Israel doesn't destroy the mosque or forbid Muslims from praying there (although the Palestinians don't seem to have as much respect for Israeli holy sites, such as when they desecrated the Tomb of Rachel when the intifada started).

Anyway, this idea that a Jewish person, even if it was Ariel Sharon, visiting a location that is so holy to the Jewish religion, being somehow a valid justification for all that has happened seems ridiculous to me. Even if Sharon was intentionally provoking it (which I have no doubt he was), maybe he was making a point about how likely it is that the Palestinians want to live alongside the Jewish people of Israel if they will start an uprising just because a Jewish person visits a holy site.

-Elektrix

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix
People like AUP keep on bringing up this thing with Sharon visiting the Temple Mount and that that "provocation" somehow justified the current intifada.



Put it this way. There was a button, a big red one, and he pushed it. Now, other Israeli politicians saw no sense in pushing it, they knew it was a big red button. Not Sharon.



How exactly does that make sense? I mean, the Temple Mount is considered one of the holiest locations in the Jewish religion. What exactly does it say that the Palestinians will see a Jewish person visiting one of the holiest locations in their religion as a justification to start an uprising?



If you want to make sense of religion, you have no hope, have you? Why do Christians believe in Christmas? Why do Hindus believe the world is on four elephants on a turtle? Why are there creationists? Why aren't women allowed to pray with the men at the wailing wall? They just do.



I mean, does that make any sense at all? The whole issue of these locations being taken so seriously aside, this is just one of the big things I don't get. I realize that this location is also holy to Muslims, and I note that Israel doesn't destroy the mosque or forbid Muslims from praying there (although the Palestinians don't seem to have as much respect for Israeli holy sites, such as when they desecrated the Tomb of Rachel when the intifada started).



That is them getting back at the Zionists. Diss us, we'll dis you back.



Anyway, this idea that a Jewish person, even if it was Ariel Sharon, visiting a location that is so holy to the Jewish religion, being somehow a valid justification for all that has happened seems ridiculous to me. Even if Sharon was intentionally provoking it (which I have no doubt he was), maybe he was making a point about how likely it is that the Palestinians want to live alongside the Jewish people of Israel if they will start an uprising just because a Jewish person visits a holy site.

-Elektrix

Not just any Jewish person. Sharon is particularly disliked by them. Jews have been to Mosques, non Jews to Jewish Temples, Christians to Mosques etc. They usually are invited in a spirit of peace and conciliation. That is, why don't we all get along together.

Sharon has no respect of Islam, or it's people. He has never shown any interest in peace, except on his own terms. By doing what he did he was only sending one clear message. I challenge you.

The current 'map' that is being drawn up for Palestine right now is already being challenged by Sharon.

As usual, the 'Nothing is to challenge Israeli security' clause hides a welter of riders that have nothing to do with security and everything to do with taking as much land and water as possible from the Palestinians.

Sharon is aiming for a Palestinian 'bantustan', with severely limited autonomy. It will be ruled by Israel, walled in by Israel, and depend on Israel for everything. Palestinians are not permitted to challenge this in any active way. That is, they can say what ever they want, but in practice, they will get it and cop it.

http://theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/30/1048962645001.htm

http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/07/1049567618632.html



Ariel Sharon has brushed aside an appeal from the White House to stop an unprecedented move by Jewish settlers into a Palestinian district of Jerusalem, which his critics say will further hinder a political settlement.

After more than two years of legal and political wrangling, Mr Sharon's office approved the move last week and the first Jewish families moved into new apartments in the Ma'aleh Ha'zeitim settlement, beside the Arab district of Ras al-Amoud. It is the first time a Jewish settlement has been built in a Palestinian area of Jerusalem since Israel seized the city in 1967.

The first settlers at the apartment complex, just a few hundred metres from the Wailing Wall, include millionaire Irving Moskowitz and his son-in-law Ariel King, a far-right political activist. More than 100 other families are expected to move in during the coming months.

White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice telephoned Mr Sharon's office and warned that the move might raise tension during the war on Iraq and further undermine the prospect of a political settlement.

Danny Seidemann, an adviser to previous Israeli leaders, said Mr Sharon's move was a test for George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who were to meet in Belfast yesterday to discuss the "road map" to a Middle East peace deal that envisages a Palestinian state within three years.

"This is not something Sharon turned a blind eye to. This is something he gave the go ahead for, even after Condoleezza Rice asked him not to," he said. "The Jewish settlement in Ras al-Amoud makes a resolution more difficult and undermines the stability of the city.

[Cleopatra]

I am the last person who will defend Ariel Sharon and I have tried too hard in my life to see things from a distance. Sharon is jew and he had every right to visit the Mount Temple. Period.

I belong to those few they call Arafat President although he is a dictator and I chose to do this for obvious reasons.

When I read to your posts Mr.Unique, I realize why Palestinians, have managed nothing,all these years ...

They use sentiment where ratio is required and they use ratio when all they have to do is trust their feelings.

Too bad they will stay slaves at least for another 50 years...unless they decide to replace their... sponsors...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am the last person who will defend Ariel Sharon and I have tried too hard in my life to see things from a distance. Sharon is jew and he had every right to visit the Mount Temple. Period.

I belong to those few they call Arafat President although he is a dictator and I chose to do this for obvious reasons.

When I read to your posts Mr.Unique, I realize why Palestinians, have managed nothing,all these years ...

They use sentiment where ratio is required and they use ratio when all they have to do is trust their feelings.

Too bad they will stay slaves at least for another 50 years...unless they decide to replace their... sponsors...

OK, well lets try this, Osama wanders down to the wailing wall. Would that make sense?

When we are talking religion, we are not talking about the logical, we are now in the realm of the emotions and faith. Logically, he may have had every right to visit the temple mount.

As a human being with feelings for the mayhem that followed, the deaths and suffering, he could have decided to take a trip to the beach that day instead.

The Palestinians know what is in store for them, they have seen the settlements coming and their land going for the past 50 years. They know that what is in store for them is slavery or imprisonment either way. On your feet or on your knees.....

As you have said before, step by step.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The Palestinians know what is in store for them, they have seen the settlements coming and their land going for the past 50 years. They know that what is in store for them is slavery or imprisonment either way. On your feet or on your knees.....

As you have said before, step by step.

So, you will have plenty of time ahead of you to attack Israel and the States. You will have topics for threads and discussions. You will have the opportunity to show how sensitive you are when it comes to human rights.

You are right! It's very much to your interest ( not personally yours) that the Palestinians remain slaves...that's why the Left has nothing to propose.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


So, you will have plenty of time ahead of you to attack Israel and the States. You will have topics for threads and discussions. You will have the opportunity to show how sensitive you are when it comes to human rights.

You are right! It's very much to your interest ( not personally yours) that the Palestinians remain slaves...that's why the Left has nothing to propose.

There has already been the same proposal made many times. Israel to clear out of the West Bank and Gaza. No settlements.

[Baker]

They used to be occupied, but now they’re just terrorized. After the UN established the nation of Israel in 1948, Gaza was conquered and occupied by the Egyptians. The West Bank was conquered and occupied by the Jordanians. Neither saw the Arabs living there as Palestinians and neither had any interest in giving them autonomy—much less a Palestinian state. When these and other nations massed their armies on Israel’s borders with the express intent of finishing what Hitler started, they lost. Israel reclaimed the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. They were hers and they are hers. In fact, our claims to Texas and California are weaker than the Israeli’s claims to the West Bank and Gaza.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
They used to be occupied, but now they’re just terrorized. After the UN established the nation of Israel in 1948, Gaza was conquered and occupied by the Egyptians. The West Bank was conquered and occupied by the Jordanians. Neither saw the Arabs living there as Palestinians and neither had any interest in giving them autonomy—much less a Palestinian state. When these and other nations massed their armies on Israel’s borders with the express intent of finishing what Hitler started, they lost. Israel reclaimed the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. They were hers and they are hers. In fact, our claims to Texas and California are weaker than the Israeli’s claims to the West Bank and Gaza.

Lets see the logic here.

Nation A does not recognise nation X
Therefore nation B does not have to recognise nation X.

[Baker]

There has never been a Nation of Palestinian how hard is that to understand.
In 1948, when Israel was awarded two-tenths of one percent as much land as was given to the Arabs, that was considered far too generous by the we-hate-Jews community, so they declared war. The Secretary General of the Arab League told Muslims living in Israel to leave so his armies could slaughter Jews more freely. In his words, “We will annihilate the Jews in a massacre comparable to the crusades.” But they lost that war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
There has never been a Nation of Palestinian how hard is that to understand.
In 1948, when Israel was awarded two-tenths of one percent as much land as was given to the Arabs, that was considered far too generous by the we-hate-Jews community, so they declared war. The Secretary General of the Arab League told Muslims living in Israel to leave so his armies could slaughter Jews more freely. In his words, “We will annihilate the Jews in a massacre comparable to the crusades.” But they lost that war.

Once again, why should Israel have been given any. The arabs weren't the ones who built the gas ovens, or built the ghettos. Yet they were expected to give up their land to appease the consciences of the west.

If you want to see how much land any country in the world ever wants to give up, just look around. There are plenty of useless lumps of rock and patches of land that raise passions that look like they will rise to war in no time.

Eg, Guantanamo Bay.

PS

There was also no state of Israel in existence then.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



There was also no state of Israel in existence then.

This man excites me when he plays dirty...

Baker didn't talk about a state but about a nation...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This man excites me when he plays dirty...

Baker didn't talk about a state but about a nation...

I am using state as a synonym for nation.

[Cleopatra]

You are so unbelievable that I can't get mad at you... :)

Claps hands...

Charmion!!! Oh well... forget it...

[Baker]

Here is an Article that fits gives one explanation of the thread topic.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6304

Edit to add This is another article on the same topic
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4592

[Dancing David]

As a 'leftist', I believe that people with huge sums of money need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. And that US corporations forget where thier wealth comes from.

I object to the policies of the state of Israel and the behavior of the PLO. They both are wrong.

Calling Israel 'the only democracy' is kind of weird since they disenfranchise anyone born in Israel who is not jewish.

I think it is a valid point though that many on the left blindly condem Israel, of course many on the right blindly support Israel.

Peace
dancing david

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by Dancing David
As a 'leftist', I believe that people with huge sums of money need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us. And that US corporations forget where thier wealth comes from.

I object to the policies of the state of Israel and the behavior of the PLO. They both are wrong.

Calling Israel 'the only democracy' is kind of weird since they disenfranchise anyone born in Israel who is not jewish.

I think it is a valid point though that many on the left blindly condem Israel, of course many on the right blindly support Israel.

Peace
dancing david

How are non-Jews born in Israel disenfranchised exactly?

-Freakzilla